Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EPSOM AND WALTON DOWNS REGULATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

COUNTY OF LANCASHIRE BILL [Lords]

As amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL

Considered, to be read the Third time.

PIECE HALL, HALIFAX (No. 2) BILL

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Initial Training Organisation

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he will be in a position to announce the result of the general review of the Army's initial training organisation.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): The results will be made public over a period of some years. I expect some initial results to be announced before the end of this year.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: When two Irish cavalry regiments were moved to this side of the water, did they not lose much of their Irish character and composition? Would not the proposal to transfer the training of the Royal Irish Rangers from Ballymena discourage Irish recruitment and encourage terrorists and others who want the troops out?

Mr. Stanley: The point made by my hon. Friend has been made by other hon. Members on both sides of the House. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on 12 March, we will consider carefully the representations that have been made on the matter.

Mr. McNamara: The Opposition — certainly the official Opposition—regard the raising of regiments in Ireland as an anachronism anyway. Can the Minister

confirm that as a result of Major-General Groom's proposal there will be no breaking of the normal regimental and county traditions of the British regiments of the line, which is one of the strengths of the British Army in comparison with many others?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the regimental structure, I can tell him that there are no proposals to alter that. I regret his earlier comment about Irish regiments being an anachronism. They have played, and still play, a very important role in the British Army's dispositions.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not a fact that soldiers from Ireland whose homes have been north or south of the border have made a glorious contribution to the traditions of many fine British regiments and of the British Army as a whole? Will my hon. Friend seriously reconsider the idea of bringing the Royal Irish Rangers depot to Great Britain, because they rightly belong in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Stanley: I assure my hon. Friend that we will consider the representations that have been made I wholeheartedly endorse the earlier part of his comments.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister acknowledge that if there is a problem about the use of "Irish", Ulster has a noble tradition within the Rifles as well and we would be happy if, under the review, the regiment was so called?

Mr. Stanley: I shall not trespass on the question of regimental names, which, in my brief experience in my present past, I have found to be the single most controversial feature of the many aspects of service life.

Cruise Missiles

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the United States of America testing programme for the ground-launched cruise missile has included a sequential launch of four missiles from a single transporter erector launcher.

Mr. Stanley: I understand that in addition to extensive sequential launched simulations in both laboratory and field environments, the United States ground-launched cruise missile test programme has included an actual sequential launch test involving two missiles.

Mr. Dobson: Is the Minister aware that the idea of a sequence of two is absurd? As there have been faults with more than 1,000 air-launched cruise missiles, is he aware that it is absurd to bring missiles into the heart of this country when they have not even been properly tested in ideal testing conditions?

Mr. Stanley: I cannot imagine what the hon. Gentleman finds absurd about a sequential launch of two missiles. That seems a perfectly sensible test to have made when they are mounted in groups of four. The flight test programme of the ground-launched cruise missiles has, generally speaking, been thoroughly satisfactory.

Mr. Adley: Is not the difference between a free and an enslaved group of societies starkly illustrated by the way in which the NATO countries individually debate, vote on and decide these matters, whereas the countries of the Soviet bloc do as they are told?

Mr. Stanley: I agree with my hon. Friend, and the events of the next 35 minutes or so will not be reproduced in Moscow.

Ms. Clare Short: Given that such tests might take place from Greenham common, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain why British soldiers who guard the perimeter of Greenham common are in grotty little corrugated huts, like nightwatchmen, while the American soldiers inside are in—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Lady has read the Order Paper.

Ms. Short: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady reads the question she will see that it is concerned with launches from single transporter erector launchers.

Ms. Short: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I referred to the possibility of such tests taking place from Greenham common, which surely brought my supplementary question into order.

Mr. Speaker: I shall not argue with the hon. Lady about that, but will permit the Minister to answer her.

Ms. Short: In that case, Mr. Speaker, may I finish my question?

Mr. Speaker: Very well.

Ms. Short: Might the conditions in which British soldiers are operating at Greenham common explain their misbehaviour towards the women who are trying to protest against—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is an abuse of Question Time.

Mr. Stanley: There will be no flight testing from Greenham common.

USSR Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the number of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' SS4, SS5 and SS20 missiles targeted on western Europe.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): As the recently published "Statement on the Defence Estimates" describes, there are now 243 SS20s and 224 SS4s targeted on western Europe. The SS5s have now been withdrawn. Each SS20 missile has three warheads.

Mr. Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm, to get this whole issue into perspective, that NATO will withdraw five times as many nuclear weapons as will be deployed in the ground-launched cruise missile and Pershing II programmes, and that there has been no equivalent response from the USSR, which in the last five and a half years has tripled the number of SS missiles that it has targeted on western Europe?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because there has been a significant and relentless increase in the number of SS20s deployed, facing both east and west. I can confirm that the NATO Alliance has, since 1980, taken decisions to remove nearly 2,500 nuclear warheads from Europe, bringing the total at the end of that removal period to the lowest for 20 years.

Mr. Strang: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the production and deployment of additional nuclear weapons, both by the Soviet Union and the United States, should be deplored? Will he comment on the strategy behind the decision of the US Government to manufacture 4,000 air-launched and 4,000 sea-launched cruise missiles in addition to those cruise missiles which are to be deployed on land?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the US is seeking every avenue to discuss these matters with the Soviet Union. The USSR, having nearly completed its deployment of these intermediate range weapons, walked out of the negotiating forum which could have led to discussions to achieve very much the end which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I do not see how I can be expected to blame both sides equally.

Sir Antony Buck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the figures which he has given justify to the full the deployment in this country of cruise missiles and, similarly, give full justification for our proceeding with the Trident programme?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his comments. As everyone knows, we did everything that we reasonably could to avoid the deployment of cruise missiles in this country. We spent four years, having warned the Soviet Union, seeking meaningful negotiations which would have enabled it to withdraw its weapons systems and avoid any equivalent systems on our side.

Mr. Cartwright: In view of the continued SS20 deployment and the forward deployment of the SS21, what steps do the Government believe should be taken to get the Soviet Union to return to the Geneva negotiating table?

Mr. Heseltine: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has followed with the same despair as the Government feel the attempts by a range of statesmen internationally to persuade the Soviet Union to indulge in meaningful negotiations. Every endeavour to persuade the Soviet Union to talk is being made, but those endeavours are being made entirely on a one-way basis and one can detect no reciprocal approach.

Sir Patrick Wall: Is it not true that what matters is not the Soviet overture but the fact that now, for the first time, Europe has a chance of shooting back if it ever becomes necessary, and therefore avoiding world war 3?

Mr. Heseltine: I know that my hon. Friend shares the Government's view that the essence of our deployment is deterrence. We believe that as long as we have a capability that ensures that the Soviets are certain that they could never win from an attack, they will never make such an attack. They have nothing to fear from the West. There is no way in which our alliance is an aggressive one.

Mr. Denzil Davies: As it is part of the Government's case, as I understand it, that cruise missiles have had to be deployed in Britain because of or in retaliation against the SS20s, and as, apparently, the Soviet Union is now deploying other missiles in retaliation against our cruise missiles, will the Secretary of State confirm that NATO or the Government have no intention of deploying even more missiles of any kind in retaliation against the Soviet missiles?

Mr. Heseltine: There are no NATO plans of which the House is not aware for the deployment of further weapons systems, but it is important to point out that the Soviet announcement that it is to replace some of its forward deployed nuclear weapons systems and intends to carry that through clearly shows that the Soviet Union already possesses the weapons to do so. I believe that the Soviet Union would have proceeded to do that regardless of what we did.

Departmental Expenditure

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he intends to take to ensure greater control of expenditure within his Department.

Mr. Heseltine: In recent years expenditure has been contained within the defence cash limit. In the light of various studies conducted within the Department in the past two or three years, and after close consultation with industry, we have significantly improved our central monitoring and management of cash flow. The carry forward arrangements for Government Departments announced last July by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor were also very helpful. But there is always room for improvement in the field of expenditure control; and in the 1984 "Statement on the Defence Estimates" which I published last week I announced the introduction in my Department of executive and staff responsibility budgets, as well as my determination to secure greater cost-effectiveness in defence procurement and supply.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite those measures, his Department is regarded by much outside public opinion as the most profligate and wasteful Department within the Government? Is he further aware that when that waste is exposed by newspapers the Department sends police officers to the newspaper offices, unannounced, who scrounge around in those offices trying to find out who has leaked documents which reveal the extensive and massive cover-up in the Department of its extravagance and waste?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is fully aware that any activities conducted by the police are entirely a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I cannot believe that it is now the Labour party's doctrine that we should encourage the leaking of confidential Government documents. [Interruption.] I add to the generality of the hon. Gentleman's attack on the Ministry of Defence the information that during a period of about seven years the Ministry had a final cash limit of about £63·6 billion, and the total overspend was about £8 million. That is remarkable cash control.

Mr. Leigh: Given that my right hon. Friend runs a Ministry with a manpower budget of £5,215 million, employing more than 500,000 civilians and service men, what manpower savings in percentage terms is he looking for to match the 47,000 reduction in manpower since 1979 and to meet his role in curbing Government spending?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interest in these matters. We have published figures for the reduction in manpower in the Ministry of Defence, but they include a significant element attributable to the privatisation of the royal ordnance factories. We shall constantly review what else we can add to that figure, but I should not want to publish targets in advance.

Mr. McNamara: Is it not a fact that the Government's concern about the damage done by leaks is more about political embarrassment than about national security? Is it not about time that the Government had a clearly defined policy and that it was not based on saving the face of the Minister, for example with regard to the leaks on the White Paper in the fortnight preceding publication?

Mr. Heseltine: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would realise that there is no way in which a Government can conduct their business meaningfully if everything is leaked at the discretion of civil servants working in the Department. No Government would tolerate such a situation.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of the Secretary of State's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Falkland Islands

Mr. Yeo: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of his Department's expenditure can be attributed to the cost of defending the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Heseltine: Much of the running cost of the forces based on the Falkland Islands would be incurred wherever they were stationed. The extra cost attributable to the Falklands garrison, including capital works and equipment, will represent around 2·5 per cent. of the defence budget for 1984–85.

Mr. Yeo: Notwithstanding that, is there not a danger that our defence spending on the Falkland Islands will distort the defence budget, even to a slight extent, and impede our ability to achieve the much-needed objective of strengthening our non-nuclear defence capability in other parts of the world?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, which enables me to repeat the fact that the cost of the Falklands budget has been added to the budget of the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, the distortion to which he referred will not take place.

Mr. Dalyell: What are we to think of a Government who, according to The Sunday Times, spend £3 million a day or more on 1,800 people in the Falkland Islands, yet have no money to help 1,800 men who will be declared redundant over the next two years, as will be announced this afternoon in the statement on British Leyland—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should direct his question to matters relating to the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Dalyell: If half the money spent on the Falkland Islands had been given, for example, in overseas aid, allowing countries such as Nigeria to buy trucks and other commodities—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Tim Eggar.

The following question stood upon the Order Paper:

Departmental Reorganisation

Mr. Eggar: to ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the reorganisation of his Department and the introduction of responsibility budgets.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Skinner: Answer.

Mr. Canavan: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Minister.

Mr. Heseltine: I refer my hon. Friend to the 1984 "Statement on the Defence Estimates", which I presented to the House last week. Chapter 2 of the statement outlines my proposals for reorganisation, which are currently the subject of a period of discussion and consultation.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is this question No. 6, or what?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the Minister is answering a supplementary question on No. 5.

Mr. Hamilton: I should like to know the Secretary of State's answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the Minister was answering the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Heseltine: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had answered No. 5, and I was answering No. 6.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We seem to have got ourselves into a bit of a twist. [Interruption.] Order. This takes time. I call Mr. Tim Eggar. Is he present? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I call Mr. Hal Miller.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order afterwards.

Mr. Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order afterwards. If he raises it now it will take time out of questions, and I cannot extend the time for them.

Mr. Canavan: What a farce.

Services (Fighting Capability)

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for increasing the fighting capabilities and the deterrent effect of all three services.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): I refer my hon. Friend to chapter four of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1984" (Cmnd. 9227) published last week.

Mr. Miller: Will my hon. Friend welcome the response by our European partners in NATO to the United States initiative on emerging technology, which offers significant opportunities not only for increasing our fighting capabilities but for industrial sales if the defence budget can be weighted in favour of equipment rather than recurrent costs?

Mr. Pattie: I agree with my hon. Friend. We welcome the opportunities presented by emerging technologies and we intend to see that British industry gets more than its share of the opportunities presented.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that the defence estimates to which he refers received a bad press, on the

whole, last week? How does he respond to the judgment in The Daily Telegraph a week ago today that, whatever economies his right hon. Friend secures, the future appears to hold only the promise of further defence reviews and the erosion of our defence capabilities? In particular, how does he respond to the conclusion of the The Daily Telegraph that his right hon. Friend has done nothing to confront that prospect?

Mr. Pattie: It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I do not agree with the conclusion of The Daily Telegraph. Nor do I agree that the White Paper had a bad press. It was well received in all quarters, apart from some rather idiosyncratic leading articles about it in certain journals.

Mr. Robert Banks: Is it not the case that our fighting capabilities more and more depend on communications and technology in space? Does my hon. Friend agree that we are witnessing a race between the Soviet Union and the United States to put weapons into space? Has not the time arrived when the two sides should come to the table to seek ways to prevent this developing?

Mr. Pattie: I am sure that what my hon. Friend says will be noted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is responsible for this subject. As to space development in military terms, I assure my hon. Friend and the House that, as far as our budget allows, we shall keep a close watch on these developments.

Mr. Barron: What likely effect will the Trident programme proposed by the Government have on our non-nuclear defence capability?

Mr. Pattie: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the White Paper, where that question is answered in detail.

Sir Dudley Smith: What contribution would greater harmonisation of weapons and equipment within NATO make to the efficiency of our own forces?

Mr. Pattie: It is difficult to give a precise answer to that. Some standardisation and inter-operability is desirable, but, as my hon. Friend knows from his experience, other factors — usually of a political or industrial nature—have to be coped with.

Mr. McNamara: Who was responsible for deciding that we would spend £3 million a day on the Falkland Islands, but was not prepared to spend a similar amount to save the jobs and livelihoods of an equivalent number of people in Scotland?

Mr. Pattie: I thought it would be clear that the decision to which the hon. Gentleman refers was taken by the Cabinet.

National Defence Industries Council

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the terms of reference of the National Defence Industries Council.

Mr. Pattie: The terms of reference of the National Defence Industries Council are, first, to provide a focus for regular consultation between the Ministry of Defence and industry on questions of defence supply and procurement of mutual concern, and, secondly, to define areas of profitable consultation and study and the appropriate machinery to be used in each case.

Mr. Douglas: Given the terms of reference and the membership of the council, will not Mr. Peter Levene's position give rise to a conflict of interest? Being a member of the council, and then hawking round private industry essential national assets such as the dockyards, he will be in a position to advise the Secretary of State, while at the same time being directly associated with the armaments industry, which will have a direct interest in acquiring these vital national assets. Will the Minister come clean on the position of Mr. Peter Levene, the adviser to the Secretary of State?

Mr. Pattie: Mr. Levene is not a member of the National Defence Industries Council. He attended the last meeting at the special invitation of my right hon. Friend. It has been clearly laid down that there will be no conflict of interest between Mr. Levene's commercial interest and any service or studies that he might carry out for the Ministry.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that the NDIC has a tradition of being a somewhat cosy club? My hon. Friend's Department is encouraging competition. Is he seeking an input from members of the NDIC so that realism may prevail? For example, will research and development and the difference between high technology and buying boots and shoes be rigorously observed in its studies?

Mr. Pattie: The NDIC does not study the matters to which my hon. Friend refers. It has considered other matters such as ratios and the impact of competition on defence industries. That fully occupies it for the present.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Reverting to the subject of Mr. Peter Levene and United Scientific Holdings, does the Minister realise not that there is great disquiet among the smaller defence contractors because Mr. Levene may have access to costs and prices that will put their companies at a disadvantage when tendering against United Scientific Holdings? Is it not quite scandalous and immoral that that gentleman, who is the chairman of a major defence manufacturing company, will, in less than six months, return to his company with all that information in his head, which can then be used to the benefit of his company?

Mr. Pattie: That is a wholly unwarranted slur on Mr. Levene. The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that, far from the disquiet that he alleges—I should be glad to have evidence of that end if he wishes to furnish me with it—Mr. Levene happens to be the deputy chairman of the Defence Manufacturers Association—which is the trade body for the small companies to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Onslow: Disregarding the unpleasant attack on an individual who cannot defend himself, will my hon. Friend tell the House whether the terms of reference of the NDIC enable it to advise him whether it would be better to restyle the Jet Provost or to run a competition for a replacement? What advice has he received from the NDIC?

Mr. Pattie: Such a matter would not lie within the usual competence of the NDIC.

Cruise Missiles

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the status of the United States operational concept for the ground-launched cruise missile based in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ron Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the status of the United States operational concept for the ground-launched cruise missile based in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Eastham: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the status of the United States operational concept for ground-launched cruise missiles based in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Stanley: The operational concept for ground-launched cruise missiles remains as described in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1981".

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister seriously believe that the Government can control and contain a nuclear war in Europe, as outlined in a Ministry of Defence publication which states that the use of cruise would be considered even to persuade Russian withdrawal at the eleventh hour? Will it be used in that context?

Mr. Stanley: The whole substance of the Government's policy rests on the principle of deterrence. As has been said many times, the cruise missiles deployed in this country are subject to firing with the consent of the British Prime Minister.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Will the Minister confirm the statement by the United States chief of staff that cruise launchers are capable of autonomous action? In the early stage of a crisis, is it not dangerous to put that capability in the hands of American officers?

Mr. Stanley: We are wholly satisfied with the command and control arrangements for cruise missiles.

Mr. Eastham: Is it not true that the United States chief of staff has confirmed that, at American direction, the theatre commanders can launch cruise missiles? If so, does that not make complete nonsense of any political control by NATO?

Mr. Stanley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the whole question of the control of cruise missiles is subject to firm political control throughout NATO.

Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to condemn the Left-wing propaganda coming from the Opposition Benches in the form of a suggestion that the cruise missile has first-strike capability? Will he tell the House that, in order to have such a capability, the cruise missile would have to be sudden, massive and accurate, whereas at the moment it is just accurate?

Mr. Stanley: I agree with my hon. Friend. I never cease to wonder at the extent of the preoccupation of the Labour party with the weapons of our allies, which are there to defend us, and its almost total silence on the weapons of our opponents, which threaten us.

Mr. Dickens: Is it not a fact that despite the mean, spiteful, distorted, unfair and unjust remarks of Labour Members, they would be the first to wish to hide under the United States' umbrella if they were threatened?

Mr. Stanley: I agree with my hon. Friend that our American allies deserve vastly better than they get from the Labour party.

Mr. Ashdown: Is the Minister aware that, according to a recent statement by General Meyer in the United States senatorial hearings in Washington, the operational concept for launching ground-launched cruise missiles and Pershing II calls for a proportion of these to be launched quickly on the sole authority of the United States theatre commander? How can the Minister square that with his belief that we do not need a dual key because the agreement of the British Government is needed before a weapon can be launched?

Mr. Stanley: We are wholly satisfied that the launch of cruise missiles would be under political control.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The hon. Gentleman has repeated himself, but he has not answered the question. Is he saying that, as far as Britain is concerned, General Meyer was wrong and the operational commander does not have discretion to fire the missiles?

Mr. Stanley: As far as ground-launched cruise missiles based in the United Kingdom are concerned, the position on command and control is exactly as stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

NATO (Strategic Planning)

Mr. Redmond: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers decided to adopt any new strategies for the deep counter-attack of Warsaw pact countries.

Mr. Cohen: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers decided to adopt any new strategies for the deep counter-attack of Warsaw pact countries.

Mr. Heseltine: No, Sir. NATO's strategy remains that of flexible response and forward defence against aggression. NATO Defence Ministers reaffirmed last week in Brussels that this is the only effective deterrent to Soviet military power.

Mr. Redmond: Will the Secretary of State ask the United States to withdraw its new airland battle strategy for the European forces, which is based on the idea that a nuclear war is winnable?

Mr. Heseltine: The airland battle strategy is a matter for the United States armed services. It is for them to determine the policies which they put forward within their own defence arrangements. It is not for me to claim that those policies are in some way a NATO doctrine.

Mr. Cohen: Is it not true that the idea of deep strike attacks, envisaging the use of nuclear and chemical weapons as well as conventional ones, is another dangerous escalation which increases the likelihood of a pre-emptive strike? Once those weapons are used, full-scale nuclear war will not be containable. Does the Secretary of State not understand that, especially as NATO has not approved the United States airland battle strategy?

Mr. Heseltine: I am aware that in the document about the airland battle strategy reference is made to the use of

chemical warfare techniques. What is the United States supposed to do when the Soviety Union has a massive chemical capability? Should the United States ignore that capability?

Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is now required from Her Majesty's Government is a more reflective statement on how they should seek to influence strategic thinking in NATO?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend asks a most important question, but he will also be aware that it is a prime purpose of the Government to seek to influence NATO strategy, and not to put forward a range of proposals in public which might have the effect of disrupting it.

Mr. Boyes: Is the Secretary of State aware that my constituents want an answer to a simple question? Is he prepared to use nuclear weapons first?

Mr. Heseltine: The Government have made it absolutely clear that they will not use any weapons first.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be extremely foolish for NATO not to have an effective capability to interdict the battlefield and to prevent the follow-on forces that are available to the Soviet Union; as it and the Warsaw pact have massive reserves and interior lines of communication?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. All Governments since the war have pursued precisely that policy.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Can the right hon. Gentleman make the matter absolutely clear? I thought he said that airland battle was not part of NATO strategy and that it might be a matter for the United States army and air force. In the event of a war breaking out in Europe, is he saying that there would be no airland battle strategy, or would the United States go its own way and use that strategy anyway?

Mr. Heseltine: No. I confirm that the airland battle document is not agreed NATO strategy. There are discussions in NATO about a range of options, but that document has not been agreed in NATO.

Pilot Training

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the standard of present flight simulators used in pilot training.

Mr. Pattie: Yes, although in this fast developing field there is always room for improvement and we are progressively replacing and updating our simulators.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of recent technical developments in computer development imagery within British industry for flight simulators? Is he certain that these latest developments are available for his Department to assess?

Mr. Pattie: The straight answer is yes, I am aware of those developments. My Department keeps constantly in touch with such developments to ensure that the latest forms of simulation are available to our armed forces.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware of the combat simulator made by British Aerospace in the Warton division and its significance in combat simulation worldwide? When does he expect the Royal Air Force to buy a combat simulator to encourage further sales abroad?

Mr. Pattie: I had the opportunity to inspect the simulator to which my hon. Friend referred as recently as 10 days ago. The RAF is considering such an acquisition.

Service Manpower (Deployment)

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future deployment of manpower within the armed forces.

Mr. Heseltine: I refer my hon. Friend to the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1984", which was published on 14 May. As I made clear in the statement, all three services are undertaking a series of studies to transfer manpower from the support areas to the front line. My objective in the area of service manpower, as in all other areas of defence expenditure, is to achieve the most efficient teeth-to-tail ratio.

Mr. Proctor: In view of the need to curb public expenditure, will my right hon. Friend continue with his manpower redeployment plans to achieve a cost-effective means of keeping within cash limits, irrespective of the vested inter-service interests, which always come out on these occasions?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall pursue that direction of policy. An important feature of the recent White paper is that about 4,000 soldiers are being moved from support areas to the front line, that there will be an enhancement of perhaps 20 per cent. in our destroyer and frigate fleet and that there will be up to 15 per cent. more fighting aircraft with existing manpower in the RAF.

Mr. McNamara: In regard to the tail, is the Secretary of State examining the support services of the BAOR, especially the large civilian element there, and thinking of bringing any of them back to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Heseltine: I can confirm that we are examining comprehensively all of the support areas. That does not mean that we have plans in any particular area.

NATO Exercises

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether United States forces in Europe have operated according to airland battle strategy while on North Atlantic Treaty Organisation exercises.

Mr. Sedgemore: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether United States forces in Europe have operated according to airland battle strategy while on North Atlantic Treaty Organisation exercises.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether United States forces in Europe have operated according to airland battle strategy while on North Atlantic Treaty Organisation exercises.

Mr. Stanley: No. When participating in NATO exercises, all NATO forces operate in accordance with NATO operational plans, which are not based on United States army airland battle doctrine.

Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister dispute the evidence given by Secretary of State Caspar Weinberger to the United States Senate that on 1 August last year, in the Reforger 82 exercise, United States forces in Europe operated according to airland battle strategy?

Mr. Stanley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that NATO exercises are conducted in terms of NATO's own plans and not US army national plans.

Mr. Sedgemore: Is it not time that Defence Ministers admitted that they have handed over British sovereignty to those who wish to practise scarcely veiled first-strike war games that are based on the strategies of the American civil war, so beloved by Caspar Weinberger?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. American defence policy is as defensive as the rest of NATO.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Minister ever visited the toy department at Selfridges to look at its nuclear war games, and in particular at one called Apocalypse, which costs £6·99, but which is currently out of stock? Would not the hon. Gentleman do better to play with that silly game instead of running round the world inciting it to its own destruction by the use of nuclear weapons and the pursuit of a battle strategy that will wipe out the entire planet? Will he see sense, go back to his childhood and purchase one of those silly little children's games?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman is wholly misinformed. It is a fundamental part of this Government's policy and that of NATO that defence rests on deterrence.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Dr. Marek: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Dr. Marek: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the first use of nuclear weapons invites retaliation and destruction? Will she give the House an assurance that she cannot envisage any situation in which she would authorise the first use of such weapons, even if a conventional war broke out? If she cannot give that assurance, will she bear in mind the overwhelming opinion among experts on both sides of the iron curtain that an initial nuclear exchange would lead to an all-out exchange, which would inevitably lead to the destruction of civilisation?

The Prime Minister: There is an agreement between NATO countries that they will use their weapons only in defence. That is much more valuable than the views to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Farr: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the events that took place yesterday in Wales, when a group of miners tried to start working again in a pit that had been closed? The miners were swamped by the pickets who arrived. There was a very meagre police presence. To encourage future attempts by miners to return to work, will she and the Home Secretary ensure that such attempts by miners to return to work and to do what they want are not thwarted in that way by militant picketing?

The Prime Minister: We were all concerned about the incident to which my hon. Friend referred. I understand that yesterday a crowd of people who had picketed


Cynheidre colliery gathered threateningly outside the home of a miner. The police were called, but when they arrived the crowd had dispersed. The police are actively investigating the incident with a view to prosecuting anyone who can be identified as having committed an offence. This morning there were about 300 pickets, and some 250 police officers were deployed. I believe that my hon. Friend will join me in congratulating the police on the general way in which they carry out their duties.

Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Lady will be aware of the dispirited comments made publicly yesterday by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the serious doubts that must now exist about his position in that office. What action will she take to ensure that the necessary authority and confidence are restored to that crucial office?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is a very effective Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and will continue to carry out his duties.

Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Lady does not appear to understand the gravity of the doubts that exist in the wake of the statements that we heard yesterday. Does she comprehend that at this crucial time of discussions about new initiatives it is essential that the people of Northern Ireland, the Government in Ireland, the people of this country and indeed all concerned parties can depend on the fact that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland enjoys the confidence of the Prime Minister and can exercise proper authority in office? Will she now answer the question? What does she intend to do to ensure that that necessary authority and confidence can be enjoyed over these crucial months?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He does enjoy my confidence. The right hon. Gentleman is simply showing that he has great difficulty in finding a question to ask.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Townend, Question No. 2.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry. I must remind the Leader of the Opposition that I had already called the next question.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has had two opportunities to ask questions and I had already called the next question.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Kinnock: There is no office of state more serious in its effect or more grave in its importance than that of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister cannot treat the matter with such frivolity when people's lives and the future arrangements for Northern Ireland are clearly at stake.

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. John Townend.

Mr. John Townend: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many more miners would like to return to work but are

deterred by mass pickets, in breach of TUC recommendations? Is it not time that the National Coal Board showed the same courage and resolution as Mr. Eddie Shah and used the laws which the Government have introduced to protect the miners from violent mass picketing?

The Prime Minister: Resort to civil law is, as my hon. Friend has said, a matter for the National Coal Board to judge, but violence and intimidation are covered by the criminal law and that is a matter for the police. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary explained to the House last week the measures that the police are taking to combat the disgraceful intimidation that has been used against working miners. It is ironic that although trade unions were formed to protect their members from threats of intimidation, those who could stop these attempts at intimidation fail to do so and refuse to condemn them. In the meantime, the police continue to exercise their powers with regard to picketing to enable miners who wish to go to work to continue to do so.

Dr. Owen: As more and more jobs in manufacturing industry are lost because of a fall-off in export orders from Third world developing countries — the most recent tragedy being today's announcement about Bathgate—does the Prime Minister accept that there is a heavy responsibility on her at the economic summit to produce measures for a co-ordinated expansion of demand in the world economy and in particular to deal with the problem of debt in Third world developing countries? Is she aware that many people will look to her for an example of leadership at the summit?

The Prime Minister: To expand demand in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be to create a new round of world inflation and thus to go into a new world recession. We shall, of course, be discussing the problem of international debt. So far, however, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it has been handled well both by the world institutions and by the commercial banks.

Mr. Strang: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Strang: Is the Prime Minister aware that the closure of Leyland at Bathgate in two years' time would be industrial sabotage? Does she recognise that to spend millions of pounds on social security benefits for families living round Bathgate, where male unemployment would rise to over 50 per cent., instead of investing in modern production facilities would be a criminal and vindictive attack on Scotland's industrial base? Is she aware that it would be resisted by Leyland workers and all Scottish people?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that the problem is not of a lack of investment, but of a lack of markets. The Government greatly regret the need to close the Bathgate factory. British Leyland has already kept it going for a considerable time, past the point at which it ceased to be viable. Leyland Trucks' share of a reduced home market fell from 26 per cent. in 1975 to 15 per cent. last year. For Leyland Trucks to survive it was necessary to close down some production, to keep the most efficient production at home, but in other plants.

Mr. Best: Is my right hon. Friend aware that throughout the world today a four-continents-based initiative was launched by President Miguel de la Madrid Hurtado and Julius Nyerere, and Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and Andreas Papandreou through the enterprise of Parliamentarians for World Order? Will she wish that initiative well, as it is based on the twin ideas of finding common ground between the nuclear states, and safeguarding national security? It is probably the most imaginative move for peace in the past 25 years.

The Prime Minister: I read of that initiative only this morning. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government and the NATO Alliance wish to reduce their armaments, but must be able to do so in a multilateral way with others doing so at the same time. It must be done in a balanced way and be verifiable. Otherwise, security would be threatened instead of enhanced.

Mr. Terry Fields: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fields: How does the Prime Minister feel, having attempted to display to the world a caring mother's face and a preparedness to travel anywhere in the interests of her children, when she sees miners' children and families seeking sustenance from soup kitchens and charities? Is she aware of the repugnance felt by millions of people at her attempts to starve miners back to work? Is she not ashamed of herself, and does she agree that she has disgraced her motherhood? Will she consider joining a closed monastic order as quickly as possible to repent of her sins and reflect on her crimes against humanity?

The Prime Minister: At present 43 pits are working completely normally and 14 are working partially in Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Lancashire, Staffordshire and Derbyshire. More miners are working now than at the start of the strike. They are earning good wages at good pits, where there is good investment, and their families are flourishing. I trust that others will follow their example. [Interruption.] It is the fault of the hon. Gentleman and those who called them out on strike.

Mr. Onslow: Has my right hon. Friend noticed how many of this man Scargill's associates in this country and overseas are avowed Communists, dedicated to doing all the damage they can to our society and economy? Does she agree that the country should judge the National Union of Mineworkers' conduct of the strike and reluctance to speak to the National Coal Board against that background?

Mr. Barron: The Coal Board vetoed that meeting.

Mr. Eadie: We wanted it regardless. The Coal Board vetoed it.

The Prime Minister: I note what my hon. Friend said. I hope that there will be what is a regular six-monthly meeting between the NUM and the National Coal Board tomorrow at Hobart house. It is highly regrettable that those at the top of the NUM have not condemned and called off the intimidation to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Proctor: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Proctor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the collective losses of British Airways, British Rail and British Leyland totalled over £106 million in 1979, and that the collective profits last year were over £118 million? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that many people in this country believe that she should continue with her successful industrial policy, so relieving the burden on the British taxpayer?

The Prime Minister: The British taxpayer has contributed some £1 billion in the last few years to British Leyland. British Leyland is improving. It is vital that it should have efficient operations, and it was necessary to close Bathgate for that purpose. We regret that, but it is due to the lack of markets and not to the lack of investment or support from the British taxpayer.

Mr. Eadie: Why did the Prime Minister encourage Mr. Ian MacGregor to veto the meeting that was proposed to be held tomorrow on the basis that he said it had to be held at Hobart house or nowhere else, when it is well know that the miners are not prepared to cross picket lines? [Interruption.] Is the Prime Minister further aware that the proposed meeting on pensions tomorrow had the venue changed in case there was trouble? Is there any sanity left in 10 Downing street or Hobart house?

The Prime Minister: There are some 50,000 miners working. They are working for themselves and for the good of their industry and their families. The meeting tomorrow is one of a regular six-monthly series of meetings.

Mr. Barron: The right hon. Lady vetoed it.

The Prime Minister: I assure the hon. Gentleman that Hobart house is not empty. There are many people working there. The regular six-monthly meeting will take place at Hobart house to discuss ordinary matters. The chairman of the National Coal Board will be there ready to take the meeting.

Mr. Eadie: The right hon. Lady vetoed it.

The Prime Minister: Should there be a different meeting to discuss the dispute, without pre-conditions, that will take place on neutral ground.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order arises directly from Question No. 5. You will recall that the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) asked an important question about the cost of the Falkland Islands adventure. That is an important matter to hard-pressed British taxpayers. An answer was given by the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) sought to ask a supplementary question pointing out the enormous extravagance of that adventure compared with the amount of money it would cost to save the Bathgate venture. Far from seeking to answer that question, the Minister went on to attempt to answer Question No. 6. You had not even called that question. The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), in whose name the question stands, was not even here, but you allowed the Minister to get away with that. I think there was a misunderstanding — [Interruption.] That was the impression created on the Opposition side of the House. It was important that we should have a run of questions on an exercise that will cost more than £2,000 million of British taxpayers' money in the next three years on a few hundred Falkland islanders. I was seeking to raise a supplementary question, but you sought to go on to the next question.

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Hamilton: The point of order is simple. You regard yourself, Mr. Speaker, and we regard you, as the protector of Back-Bench interests in the House. That was not evident in the course of those exchanges. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think Mr. Speaker and I understand one another in these matters. When an issue like that arises during Question Time, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider the proposition that a point of order should be raised only at 3.30. It was very relevant that it should have been raised at that point. Leaving it until 3.30 is like asking the man on the scaffold waiting to be hanged to wait for another 30 seconds for his point of order to be taken. It is too late then. I ask you to reconsider the matter. It is extremely important for the British taxpayer to know that he is paying those thousands of millions of pounds on these few hundred people in the Falkland Islands while—

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think we need a further point of order. I think I can deal with this—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Ms. Clare Short: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If it is exactly the same matter I shall deal with them all at once.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should just like to make the point that most hon. Members believe that you, Mr. Speaker, are a better judge of the interests of Back-Bench Members than individual pleaders such as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton).

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I can deal with the matter now. We got off to a rather bad start—

Ms. Short: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We got off to rather a bad start on defence questions. I apologise to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) for pulling her up on a question before she had completed it. May I say to hon. Members that I have to make a judgment every day on the Order Paper—

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to make a judgment every day on the Order Paper as to what are the important issues on which we should have a run. There were other very important questions on the Order Paper today. When the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) strayed somewhat in his supplementary, I bore in mind that there was to be a statement on the very matter later in the afternoon and that was why I moved on. May I point out that I did call the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar). May I say to the whole House that it would be immensely helpful to me if, when I call hon. Members to ask their questions, they got up and announced their presence because it is very difficult in a full House to see them unless they do.

Mr. Hamilton: He was not here.

Mr. Speaker: Then I would not have called him.

Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not expect you to rule on this today, Mr. Speaker, but may I say that one right hon. Member week in and week out has robbed Back Benchers of time at Question Time? Perhaps you would take him to the headmaster's study and have a word with him. I refer to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few days ago when I was addressing a meeting in the Nottinghamshire coalfield it was reported to me that an old-age pensioner, crippled since birth, had been going round the coalfield collecting money for miners' families.

Hon. Members: What is the point of order?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian and he must not abuse points of order by raising matters on which I cannot possibly rule.

Mr. Skinner: I have not got to the point of order yet. She was raising money and, as a result of intimidation from those miners who were working—[Interruption.]—a brick was thrown through her window. This was a disabled pensioner who had a brick thrown through the window.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Skinner: I promised the old lady that I would raise the matter at the earliest possible moment. I felt sure that I would get the opportunity today, in view of the many questions about the miners' dispute asked by Conservative Members. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether I can explain this matter even further at any other time today.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that he cannot explain the matter any further.

Ms. Short: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow


(Mr. Dalyell) asked a supplementary question to question No. 5 which was not answered and without you, Mr. Speaker, calling the next question the Secretary of State started to answer it. The question is, "Who is in the Chair?" Who will force Ministers to answer questions that are raised in this place?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady was present at the time and she knows that there was some noise when the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) strayed on to other matters in his supplementary question. As I have already explained, I called question No. 6. The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) was not in his place and I say again that it is most helpful if hon. Members rise from their places and announce their presence when I call them.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you not agree that the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was an abuse, and will you tell him so?

Mr. Speaker: I have already said that twice.

British Leyland (Corporate Plan)

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the BL 1984 corporate plan.
I am making available in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office a report by BL on its recent performance and details of the 1984 corporate plan. The published results of BL show that, in 1983, the company achieved its objective of breaking even at the trading level for the first time since 1978. Productivity and quality standards within the company have continued to improve markedly. The House will, I am sure, wish to congratulate the company on these achievements, and on the range of new models successfully launched over the past year, including the larger Sherpa vans, the Land Rover 110, the Maestro, and—most recently—the Montego. The corporate plan, which the Government have now approved, sets out the basis on which the company's solid progress towards viability and its return to the private sector will be maintained.
A particular problem for BL in this year's plan has been Leyland Trucks, which faces an exceptionally depressed market at home and particularly overseas, showing little sign of major improvement in the medium-term, and severe over-capacity throughout Europe. The Government have endorsed the board's plan to continue the Leyland Trucks business, but accept the need for radical action to reduce costs and adjust to the medium-term prospects for the market. The company has informed its work force at its Bathgate plant today of the phased closure of that plant over the next two years. Leyland Bus, too, has suffered from a depressed market at home and will also have to reduce its capacity to a level more consistent with market prospects. The company has today informed its work force at the Charles H. Roe plant in Leeds of the closure of that plant later this year.
The Government, like the company, greatly regret these measures, which are, however, necessary to establish a viable prospect for the remainder of the commercial vehicles business and the employment in it.
It has been the long-established objective of the BL board to return its businesses to the private sector. The House will be aware of the sustained improvement in recent years in the performance of Jaguar Cars. As a result of this improvement, the BL board is now able to propose as a first step, subject to the approval of the shareholders of BL plc, that Jaguar Cars should be returned to the private sector later this year. It is the board's intention to proceed by means of a public offer for sale of Jaguar. The Government warmly welcome this plan and I look forward to keeping the House informed of progress in the coming weeks.

Mr. Peter Shore: In the light of this appalling statement, I give notice now that I shall be seeking leave to move the Adjournment of the House at the end of the statement.
What should have been a welcome statement by the Secretary of State, telling us about the progress that is being made under public ownership to rescue the British motor car and motor vehicle industry, has been yet another disastrous statement of closures affecting the British


commercial vehicle industry. It is truly remarkable that when, only a few weeks ago, the Secretary of State was announcing the coming to Britain of the Nissan car company, due to bring 450 jobs in the first two-year phase, he has announced today the loss of 2,250 jobs, five times that number, to happen in the same time scale over the next two years.
When the Labour Government rescued the bankrupt British Leyland nine years ago, it was the intention to maintain for Britain a British-based, British-owned passenger and commercial vehicle industry. It now appears that the commercial side of the British-based British Leyland firm is to shrink to virtually negligible size.
The Government speak of over-capacity in Europe, but is it not the case that British Leyland has traditionally, through its Bathgate plant, aimed its export markets outside the continent of Europe? The Prime Minister said that there was no failure to invest, but does this decision not follow almost automatically from the decision not to invest in the Cummins diesel engine a few months ago, and the failure to invest in the 211 model truck which now offers a promising prospect?
Is not the real cause of the failure that we have seen in the commercial vehicle industry, as we have seen in British manufacturing industry as a whole, the plunge into deficit, so that last year, for the first time in our history, we became a net importer of commercial vehicles, having been a net exporter of 70,000 commercial vehicles a year in 1979 when the Government came into power? That is the story, and it is a story that is spreading blight and depression and loss of jobs all over England, and Scotland particularly, as this savage decision makes plain.
I will ask one further question about the closure at Bathgate. The right hon. Gentleman mentions 1,800 jobs. That is tragic enough, but is it not the case that it is a multiple of that figure that we have to consider when we take account of all the component and other suppliers who will also lose their jobs?
I turn now to C. H. Roe-Leyland Bus, in Leeds. Is it not the case that the reason why that enterprise is to close is that own demand for buses has fallen dramatically since the cut in the transport supplementary grant of the last two years?
Finally, on the decision to go ahead and prepare for the sale of Jaguar, the Secretary of State told us at the beginning of his statement that BL has achieved its objective of breaking even. Can he tell us what would be the deficit of BL without the profits of Jaguar?

Mr. Tebbit: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) could not find a single word of praise for the efforts of the Leyland workers who have brought the cars group back into profitability, who have brought Jaguars to profitability and who are returning the whole business to profitability. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am even more sorry—

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Where is the Prime Minister? We want her.

Mr. John Smith: This is disgraceful.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Answer the questions.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Tebbit: It might help Labour Members to regain some of their courtesy—[Interruption.]—if I tell them that the Prime Minister has left to keep an appointment with the leader of one of the other parties in the House.

Mr. Dave Nellist: This is shameful .

Mr. Tebbit: I am sorry, too, that the right hon. Gentleman cannot distinguish between a Nissan car and a Leyland truck and appreciate that they are in different markets. I am glad, however, that he begins to understand that there has been a fall in the marked for trucks outside Europe. Indeed, in Nigeria alone, a traditional market for Leyland vehicles, sales have fallen from 1,400 in 1978 to fewer than 300 in 1983. I suppose that he also wants to blame the British Government for Nigeria's problems. [Interruption.]
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question about Cummins Diesel is that it would be cheaper for BL to buy the engines from Cummins in the United Kingdom than to produce them at Bathgate, even after all the investment had been made.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the loss of component jobs. Can he not understand that the number and value of components sold are not dependent on whether Leyland puts money into Bathgate? It depends on how many trucks the company sells; and there would be no difference in the number of trucks sold, whether Bathgate was there or not. Bathgate is a drag on the company's recovery plans as they are now seen.

Mr. Ewing: Answer the question.

Mr. Tebbit: I shall take less time if the hon. Gentleman keeps quiet for a moment.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney spoke of public sector subsidies to the bus industry. He should realise that people are buying more cars than ever before and that there is less demand than ever before for buses. Indeed, more than £1 billion has been put, through various schemes, into transport subsidies for buses and allied vehicles.

Mr. Barry Henderson: It is unfortunate that a statement so serious for central Scotland should have been made on a day when the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is in Inverness.
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that if British Leyland will not accept representations to support the continuation of the only wholly integrated vehicle production unit in Britain—

Mr. Ewing: The Government made the decision.

Mr. Henderson: —my right hon. Friend will ensure that British Leyland will be unable to lock out any other potential vehicle builder who might wish to use that plant?

Mr. Tebbit: I regret, of course, that this statement has come at an inconvenient moment for some Scottish Members. It was, however, dictated largely by the timetable of events concerning the annual general meeting of British Leyland and its desire to inform the work force today of the proposed closure.
We should, of course, welcome the possibility of someone taking over the Bathgate plant, and we shall do all we can to that end, but I must tell the House that the prospects are not good. On the other hand, the right hon.


Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney will recollect that he was very sneering about the prospect of saving jobs at Cammell Laird until private enterprise came in to rescue those who had been let down by public industry.

Mr. Dalyell: Do hon. Members on both sides of the House comprehend that, in talking about Bathgate, we are discussing the largest concentration of machine tools under any one roof, not only in the United Kingdom but in the whole of Europe? That is the size of the problem. Are we not talking about the de-industrialisation of Britain? I appeal to those Conservative Members who are genuinely concerned — I am sure that they are — about the de-industrialisation of our country to persuade their Ministers to think again about the help that can be given to BL's Bathgate factory. That factory came about because of the decisions of Harold Macmillan, Rab Butler and lain Macleod. Is there not some prime ministerial responsibility in this case? In the days before the Conservative party was hijacked and run by its present leadership, Harold Macmillan would have stayed in his place to hear a statement of this importance, and not have left the Chamber, whatever else he had to do. Should not the present Conservative party leaders reflect on what their predecessors did for good reasons?

Mr. Tebbit: It was difficult to understand the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's question. He should understand that the plan put forward by the BL board is one that, in its consideration—

Mr. Ewing: And yours.

Mr. Tebbit: —and in my consideration, too—

Mr. Ewing: And the Prime Minister's.

Mr. Tebbit: —is the one that is best calculated to ensure the survival of truck making in BL. That is the case. The Labour party believes that, by over-investing and over-producing trucks for which there are no market, the business could be saved, but the Labour party is alone in that belief.

Mr. Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government and the board of British Leyland are making great efforts to keep Leyland Trucks going in circumstances in which there has been a sharp fall in demand? The course of action recommended by the Opposition is likely to lead to the downfall of the whole group by weakening the successful elements by calling on the cash needed for development to prop up part of the enterprise that has no future in the market.

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is right. During the past five years, investment of about £25 million has been made at Bathgate alone. Last year, Leyland Vehicles lost £70 million. Increased investment at Bathgate, certainly unless it were accompanied by massive closures of every other plant in BL, would result, of course, in increased losses. Those increased losses inevitably would mean increased job losses before long.

Mr. Robin Cook: Cannot the Secretary of State find a word of praise to say for the responsible and loyal work force at Bathgate who have been betrayed by today's statement? Does he not appreciate that this corporate plan is a clear breach of faith by management of undertakings which it gave and which the Government endorsed to the work force as recently as two years ago? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me—I say

this out of personal anguish, not because of party politics — that a man of 50 made redundant today in West Lothian need not expect to work again until he reaches retirement age? That is the reality of unemployment in our community. Is the right hon. Gentleman really prepared to condemn several hundred men to that future? If he is, does not he or the Secretary of State for Scotland have a single proposal to help the community that they have blasted today?

Mr. Tebbit: First, let me remind the hon. Gentleman that my words of praise for the workers of British Leyland encompassed every worker, from the chairman to the last man or woman in the humblest job, whether in Scotland or in Britain—[Interruption.]—or in England, who has been doing his or her best to bring this company round. The hon. Gentleman must understand that there has been no breach of faith between the management and the work force.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Yes, there has.

Mr. Tebbit: There has been no breach of faith between the management and the work force. The fact is that there are not sufficient customers coming forward to buy the trucks that are being produced. I have heard the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) wax lyrical about wine lakes. Does he want to produce a lorry park as well? The point is that the measures that are being taken today are not measures to destroy jobs; they are measures to save jobs.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: I hate to sound like someone picking over the carrion, but will the Secretary of State confirm that the axle division is going to Albion Motors? Can my right hon. Friend give any assurances on the continuity of employment and work at Albion?

Mr. Tebbit: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Albion works will be the centre of axle production for Leyland Vehicles. That is the plan of the company, which we have endorsed. Inevitably, the size of the operation will depend on the company's success in securing sales, but it is the company's intention that Albion should remain the centre for the construction of axles and many other components.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Does the Secretary of State realise that this afternoon's statement will come as a bombshell not just to Scotland but to west Yorkshire, and that it gives the lie to the Government's view that an economic recovery is under way? If the 400 or more workers at C. H. Roe had been in the House, they would have heard the Secretary of State use the word "regret" in his statement and they would also have realised that the word comes falsely from his lips. Is it not about time that the Secretary of State stopped talking about regret and started talking about hope for people who are thrown on the scrap heap, about hope for the young people in Leeds who will have no future in the engineering industry, and about action so that people who are thrown out of work have some future to look forward to?
With regard to C. H. Roe, is it not the case that if the Government had not cut finance for passenger transport authorities and county councils, jobs would halve been available? Is it not time for the Secretary of State to talk to his colleague the Secretary of State for the Environment


and make sure that money is made available to give people productive work in Leeds rather than wasting them on the dole?

Mr. Tebbit: I am sure that, on mature consideration, the hon. Gentleman will understand that there is no political advantage for anyone in putting men and women out of work. There is no good social reason; there is no good reason at all to put men and women unnecessarily out of work. That is why I and all my colleagues regret it when it happens. The hon. Gentleman is very strong on the suggestion that—

Mr. Norman Atkinson: The right hon. Gentleman is lying.

Mr. Tebbit: I shall not comment on the view of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) that I am lying, which he put in his usual charming way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) did not say that. I did not hear it, anyway.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Twister.

Mr. Tebbit: I have nothing to withdraw. I say to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) that there will be a market for buses when the buses are produced at prices that are right and competitive. There is no way in which the company can be subsidised into profit. I regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman had no word whatsoever for the success of the cars group—

Mr. Faulds: Disgraceful.

Mr. Tebbit: —and many other parts of British Leyland during these difficult times. I have to say that I can even shout down the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), who has strayed in from the chorus line again.

Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the last Question Time on trade and industry, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was directly involved in the incident that led to the naming of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) with regard to an allegation of lying. The right hon. Gentleman has just made a most serious allegation, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make him withdraw that comment; otherwise there will not be seen to be fairness in the House.

Mr. Robin Corbett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not need any help on this. I did not hear what the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said. I am certain that if it was a remark that may have misled the Secretary of State—

Mr. Faulds: Typical Tebbit.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Tebbit: rose—

Mr. Faulds: It is absolutely in character.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Secretary of State was misled, I am sure that he wishes to say so.

Mr. Tebbit: I think that I can help. If I misheard the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) and if the hon. Gentleman can assure me and the House that he did

not say that I was lying, of course I shall be happy to withdraw the suggestion. It is really up to the hon. Gentleman.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I fully understand that this matter raises great passions in the House, but I ask the House to proceed—

Mr. David Winnick: Tebbit is a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to proceed, so that we may come to subsequent business.

Mr. Winnick: Chuck Tebbit out.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend not be deflected by the silly comments by some Opposition Members who were talking about the de-industrialisation of Scotland, when so many parts of Scotland are booming with the new — [Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people throughout the country, perhaps in a rather calmer atmosphere than today, will realise that he is absolutely right to support the management recommendation of the board of British Leyland, and that returning Jaguar to the private sector will provide funds for expansion and investment in the viable parts of British Leyland?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is of course right that British Leyland will retain the cash from the sale of Jaguar for the purposes of the British Leyland business. With regard to what has been referred to as the de-industrialisation of Scotland, I notice that, not least through the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, inward investment to Scotland is continuing at record levels. When I was in the United States last week, I found a positive attitude among many American industrialists towards investment in Scotland. Many of them are increasing their investment. I do not think that their feelings about Scotland would have been altogether improved had they seen the behaviour of some Scottish hon. Members today.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people inside and outside the House will look on the news of the tragic closures as clear evidence that the economic recovery, if it is taking place at all, is too shallow and weak to reverse the decline of the British industrial base that has taken place under the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman is a member? With regard to the privatisation of Jaguar, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at a recent meeting between my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), the leader of the Liberal party, and the chief executive of Jaguar, Mr. John Egan, the latter expressed specific interest in worker participation and profit sharing? Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that, in any scheme he brings forward, both those elements will feature?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman may have missed the fact that there has been a worldwide fall in the demand for trucks. If there is that fall, it may be prudent to reduce capacity and cut costs to recover from that position. That is what the plan is designed to do. It is designed to ensure


that Leyland Vehicles can operate successfully and profitably at far lower break-even levels than would have been the case if the Bathgate projects had continued.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: What about the 50,000 increase in truck imports?

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman is going on about imports. He had better ask those who buy them why they do so, and he might then have the answers.

Mr. Kinnock: Has demand gone down?

Mr. Tebbit: Of course demand has gone down, and both foreign and British manufacturers have suffered. What the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand, perhaps because he has never yet borne any Government responsibility, is that there is not always an easy option out of difficult problems.
As to what the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) says about the recovery of markets and worker participation, it is primarily a matter for the BL board to decide the manner in which the shares will be offered, and what percentage will be offered to the workers. I hope that, as in all the other privatisation measures that we have carried out directly under Government control, there will be some opportunity for the workers to take part.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is sad that BL's corporate plan has come out with this news about Bathgate, when we should be able to—as we can—congratulate BL and its workers on transforming a music-hall joke into a very fine British company?

Mr. Nellist: Well done, lads—now go on the dole.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: On the privatisation of Jaguar, does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem is that BL will be selling off virtually the only profitable side of the business? What then will happen to the capital raised from that? It may be that, if BL is left on its own, investors will feel that it is not as viable a company as it is with Jaguar. We do not wish the whole edifice of BL to be in danger from what may be only a once-for-all capital profit. If these jobs and this investment can be secured, all well and good, but the future of the whole group must not be endangered by one sale.

Mr. Tebbit: First the board, and secondly I and my colleagues, are satisfied that there is nothing in the sale of Jaguar that endangers the group—rather the reverse; the income will assist the group. I do not believe that those who have been advancing credit to BL have been doing so solely on the basis of the profits of Jaguar.

Mr. George Park: Does the Secretary of State accept that in saying that, unless Bathgate closes, there will be detrimental effects on the rest of the company, he is recognising the interdependence of the companies within BL, yet he still proposes to privatise Jaguar, which will have the same detrimental effect on the progress of the whole company? We have heard a lot, even this afternoon, about economic recovery, and the chairman of BL referred to it in the annual report. He said tht it would "assist the further growth" in commercial vehicle markets this year. Are we now to take it that there is no economic recovery?

Mr. Tebbit: No—there is some hope that the market for commercial vehicles will improve further this year. It

is clear that it is unlikely that in the near future the demand will return to the levels of a few years ago. That is a result not merely of the recession but of trucks being larger, longer and more effectively used than ever before. As to what the hon. Gentleman said about the interdependence of the BL group, what is happening is that Jaguar is leaving BL but is putting back into it a large sum of cash, which the company needs. At the moment, Leyland Vehicles is losing £70 million a year, and that has to be financed out of the profits of other parts of the group. It is prudent and proper that the management should take measures to reduce those losses, and, we hope, to bring Leyland Vehicles into profit.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend re-read, and remind the House of, the evidence given by the then Sir Donald Stokes to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in its inquiry into the British motor vehicle industry 10 years ago, when Sir Donald Stokes condemned the fact that BL had been forced to go to Bathgate against its commercial judgment, and spelt out to the Committee the intolerable economic burden of extra costs that this placed on its operations? That would not have been a burden on it had the business been allowed to expand where the commercial judgment of the directors had wished it to do so. Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that we are now reaping the whirlwind of that bad decision?

Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of what was said to that Committee some years ago. A great deal of it is well worth re-reading.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is it not the brutal truth, from what the Secretary of State has said, that there was a choice between saving jobs at Bathgate, Scottish jobs, and those at Leyland, English jobs, and that, being the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry — an English Minister—he opted to save the English jobs at the expense of Scottish jobs, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, like a quisling, has acquiesced in that decision.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): indicated dissent.

Mr. Wilson: Is it not time that Scotland was treated with more respect than that with which his Department and Government have so far treated it?

Mr. Tebbit: I suggest that the first thing that the hon. Gentleman should do is to put down a parliamentary question, or write to Sir Austin Bide, asking for a list of closures of BL plants north and south of the border. I think that he will find that Scotland has fared very well over the years. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman should understand that, whether the jobs are north or south of the border, one has to look at all the possible options for how one operates a number of plants. What governs the decision is not which side of the border they are but what is the most effective way to build a company. Otherwise, the hon. Gentleman must have some fantasy in his mind that Sir Austin Bide is engaged in a vendetta against Scotland. I think that he has more to do than to engage in such activities.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Jaguar management and work force have shown what can be achieved in the British car industry? Is he also aware that the people of the west midlands welcome the overall progress of BL, which he


has announced today, from a position of near-disaster a few years ago—something which is always conveniently overlooked by the Opposition?

Mr. Tebbit: Indeed—and it is always as well to remind ourselves that, as recently as 1980, the Jaguar work force produced 1·3 cars per man per year and now produces 3·42 cars per man per year. The production of cars has doubled, the company is profitable and the cars are well made and have a high reputation. If we could achieve that standard of improvement in the rest of the business, we would perhaps be talking of job gains rather than job losses.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State estimate how many jobs will be lost in the firms supplying components to Bathgate, and, in particular, what the effect will be on the Scottish Stamping and Engineering Company in Ayrshire, in the Secretary of State for Scotland's constituency?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman will understand that it would be unreasonable to expect me to know all the circumstances of that company. I suspect that his point was directed rather more at my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland than at me. Of course we shall look into the circumstances. The volume of components bought does not depend on whether they are assembled at Bathgate — it depends on how many vehicles are assembled. That depends on how many can be sold, which depends upon their cost. Therefore, the proposals are more likely to increase the sale of components than to reduce them.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the real tragedy of the closure is that the work force has co-operated in every way and is almost blameless, and that the closure has been made necessary because of the total collapse of the market? In the two years before closure, will every effort be made to build on the success already achieved in Scotland through re-industrialisation and the bringing in of new companies selling goods, products and services that people want to buy, so that employment can be created in West Lothian as has already happened in Livingston with NEC?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been no criticism from the Leyland board of the work force at Bathgate. That is not the point at issue—it is that the market has collapsed. The recovery of the market, although it is there, is slow. Therefore, the company must be run at a lower volume. We have looked for the most efficient way to do that.
Of course, there is a most excellent record on investment in Scotland in new companies such as the Digital Equipment Company, National Semi-conductors Limited and many others in the hi-tech industries that have been pouring in and creating jobs in recent years.

Mr. Nellist: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's statement tell volumes about his view of society—close down a bus factory that working people use and laud and extend the production of super-toy cars for the rich? Why does not he admit that he knows less about cars and the truck and bus division of BL—in which I once worked —than he does about bikes? Why does not he confirm the worthlessness of the reported promise by the Prime

Minister that she intended to save Bathgate? She could not be bothered even to stay in the Chamber to listen to the questions on the statement?
Finally — I have waited for a second Coventry Member to speak before rising—why does not the right hon. Gentleman explain the reality of the privatisation of Jaguar? Is it not that, after the investment of public money and the sacrifice of workers—so that the same number of cars are produced now as in 1976, but with fewer workers because of greater exploitation on the track—the right hon. Gentleman's mates will pick up the pickings when he sells Jaguar to them? That tells us a great deal about the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman's question tells us a great deal about him and his view that the way to success is to produce cars of too low a quality and too high a price for anyone but thick millionaires to buy.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Did my right hon. Friend's Department receive any proposals from British Leyland to save Bathgate, or did his Department make any proposals to BL? Will he assure the House that there is no chance of Jaguar falling into foreign hands?

Mr. Tebbit: On the first question, both the BL board and the Government looked at all the possible combinations and proposals that we could envisage to determine how much of Leyland Vehicles' productive capacity and how many jobs could be saved. At the end of the day, we concluded that we were forced to agree with the BL board that the plan that it had put to us, and which it asked us to approve, was the best option available.
On the question of possible foreign control of Jaguar, arrangements will be made about that and will be announced by BL at the time of the flotation.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that alliance Members very much welcome the success of the volume car production part of BL, which is the absolute kernel of its operation? But does not that success underline the failure of the Government's economic policies that have led to the closure of Bathgate and the plant in Leeds? Will he listen to the representations from a broad spectrum of British industry, seeking a reinvigoration of British industry to increase the demand for such factories?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an absolute assurance—it was not clear from his answer to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) — that Jaguar will not be allowed to fall into foreign hands? Are there any plans to sell other parts of BL, such as Unipart?

Mr. Tebbit: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has added to the general welcome that has been given by all those of a more thoughtful turn of mind to the progress made in the volume cars group. On the question about the general expansion of demand, I can suggest only that he takes a short trip across the channel and asks the French about the consequences of artificially expanding demand and then finding that they have caught a tiger by the tail in no mean fashion.
On the arrangements for Jaguar, I can only say again that those will be announced at the time of flotation. On the privatisation of other parts of BL, it is best to say only that, as possibilities arise, I shall inform the House.

Mr. Bruce Milan: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the quality of the work force at


Bathgate. Is he aware that at the time of the last re-organisation of Leyland Trucks, that work force was given a specific assurance that Bathgate would remain a key operation of BL? Have not those assurances been repeated many times? Will not today's statement be met by the work force with a deep sense of betrayal, which will be widely shared in Scotland?
Is it not all the more nauseating that the Government should have given approval to the closure when, only a fortnight ago, the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister—not to mention the Secretary of State for Scotland — attended the Scottish Tory party conference and said how well the economy was doing and what wonders the Government were doing for Scotland? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition will not accept today's statement as the final word about Bathgate? We shall do everything possible to prevent the closure of that modern and efficient plant.

Mr. Tebbit: Of course, one can understand the feelings of those workers who are faced with redundancies.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Here he goes again.

Mr. Tebbit: The fact remains that, unless people come forward to buy the vehicles, there is not much point in making them. That cannot be emphasised too strongly. BL — management and work force alike — have tried to make a success of Leyland Vehicles and the Bathgate plant. That success has so far been denied to them. The management has now concluded that success will be most likely if Bathgate is closed and there is a concentration on bringing the company back into profit.
It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not say anything about the work force at Albion, in whose interests it is that Leyland Vehicles should become successful and profitable.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1978–79 the Leyland car body plant in my constituency was producing 88 car bodies per man year, while currently it is producing 266? Is that not a remarkable reflection on the ability of both work force and management?
While I regret the closures, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government's job is not so much to retain old factories which, for good or bad reasons, have outlived their usefulness, as to do their utmost to create the conditions that will ensure that new jobs will be created?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is indeed right, and he is right to point out the extraordinary increase in productivity by the workers in the factory in his constituency. What is all the more remarkable is that those 266 car bodies are finding ready and willing buyers. That is the key to the success of the car group. My hon. Friend asks about creating conditions in which new jobs can be established. Indeed, that is the purpose of the strategy, and that is why it is so pleasing to see that many foreign investors have much more faith in Scotland than many Opposition Members have in their constituents.

Mr. Ron Brown: Will not the Secretary of State accept that responsibility for managing a company lies with the management? Since our German and Japanese competitors have done reasonably well, despite the crisis, would not the Secretary of State be wise

to point the finger at management? Would it not be a good idea to dismiss the board of directors instead of the workers at Bathgate? Would not that be true justice? Or is the Minister simply trying to shuffle the cards and cover up for his Government as usual?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman is of course right to say that the performance of management is a key factor in the performance of a company, but there are other factors too. The managements of German factories, faced with unreasonable pay demands and demands for the reduction of hours, are probably thinking at the moment that their problems are not totally related to management skills.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: I had anticipated that the Government's objective for British Leyland was to privatise the whole of the corporation. Jaguar and Unipart are two very successful areas of the business. If we sell off Jaguar and Unipart—and and my right hon. Friend seemed to accept a moment ago that there is pressure within BL to sell off Unipart—will not the Government have to give up the idea of privatising the rest of the corporation, and be tied to giving Government support to the remainder?

Mr. Tebbit: No, I do not think so. BL is behaving exactly as a private sector company would behave if it was short of cash for the mainstream business. It is finding items in its inventory which are not central to the business and which can be sold off to raise cash for the mainstream business—the volume car business. BL is entirely right to take that route as if it were a private sector company.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Would the Secretary of State not acknowledge that none of the improvements made at BL in the past few years at a terrible cost in jobs would have been possible without the rescue attempt launched by the Labour Government at a cost of £1,000 million, and opposed by the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends? Could the Secretary of State also give us some insight into his neolithic economics and explain how success can be wrapped around the loss of 2,200 jobs? Will there not be further job losses when Jaguar in my constituency has also been sold to the right hon. Gentleman's friends?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman's latter point suggests that he believes, in essence, that whenever a private sector company is making profits, there are job losses. The reverse is true.
On his earlier point, what the hon. Gentleman must understand is that, although there are to be nearly 1,800 jobs lost at Bathgate, in the longer run, as those jobs disappear, engines will have to be produced elsewhere in the United Kingdom, so jobs will also be created. The developments are not all of one kind. The hon. Gentleman must bring himself up to date on these matters and try to acquire a little understanding of them.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will make full use of the two-year phasing period to investigate employment uses for the Bathgate factory in future, in cooperation with the Scottish Office, the Scottish Development Agency and any other relevant bodies.

Mr. Tebbit: Indeed, Sir. The Secretary of State and I and all other Ministers concerned with investment,


particularly overseas investment, will be continuing to devote ourselves to bringing new investment to Scotland as well as other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Will not the Secretary of State accept that the corporate plan that he has announced today and which the workers have had to accept, is one of a succession of corporate plans which are influenced by Government policy? This Government's policy is to compartmentalise British Leyland and sell it off bit by bit, because they do not believe in a British car, bus and vehicle corporation?

Mr. Tebbit: There is nothing incompatible in believing in success for the British industry, and privatising it. The success that we have achieved in bringing BL back into profit — [HON. MEMBERS: "We?"] Yes, we — the Government, the management, the work force and everybody concerned. I would hope that even some Opposition hon. Members might have tried to do something to help. Our job has been made far more difficult by the fact that we had to undo so much work shoddily and badly done by our predecessors.

Mr. Roger King: Would my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that the odd tear will be shed in Birmingham over the closure at Bathgate, because that was our truck industry, wrenched away from the midlands in the 1960s in the name of progress along with many other parts of the British motor industry, which were scattered to the winds and have fallen one by one?
Would my right hon. Friend agree that the policies followed by the management of BL Cars in particular have resuscitated that company, leading to the Longbridge plant alone employing an extra 500 people this year and the launch of another new car tomorrow at a press preview at the national exhibition centre? Together with the extra workers taken on at Cowley, those are good examples of how to redevelop our motor industry. When Jaguar, Unipart and, ultimately, Austin-Rover are privatised will there be arrangements for the work force to have a slice of the action?

Mr. Tebbit: I shall take the last point first. Arrangements will be announced by the British Leyland board, which will be in the lead in the privatisation programmes. I also rejoice in the resurgence of motor manufacture in my hon. Friend's constituency, but he must not tempt me to take the nationalistic view about these matters which some hon. Members from north of the border appear to take.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Can the Secretary of State say how many commercial vehicles are imported now, as compared with 1979? Can he also tell us why the closure at Bathgate has happened and how far the people of West Lothian will have to go on his father's famous or infamous bike to find jobs?

Mr. Tebbit: The market in Britain for trucks fell by about 45 per cent. from the peak demand to the trough. It is now recovering, but not very quickly. I do not have the figure for import penetration in front of me.

Mr. Hoyle: I thought that the Secretary of State would not have the figure.

Mr. Tebbit: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I know that Leyland Vehicles lost market share very severely until last year. Last year, it picked up a little and it is continuing to do so.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I very much regret the closure of the two plants at Bathgate and Leeds and the social consequences that will follow from those closures. However, will my right hon. Friend accept that those who know anything about the motor industry accept that the closures were inevitable? Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House why the United Kingdom bus and commercial vehicle industries are losing out in international trade, particularly to the Japanese? Will he carry out an inquiry to find out why this is happening? That would give hope to what remains of the industry. His decision is welcome in that it does not provide unfair competition for both Fodens of Sandbach and ERF of Sandbach, which would have taken the provision of assistance to BL very badly. Such assistance would have placed those firms in a very bad position. Is it not surprising that Jaguar's success is receiving no applause from the Opposition? The massive and growing demand for the new improved Jaguar car is coming not from the wealthy of Britain but from America.

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition are interested only in gloom and doom and are disappointed if they do not get enough of it. With regard to what he said about the performance of British as opposed to other truck makers, all truck makers have had a pretty thin time during the world recession. My hon. Friend asked for an inquiry into why the Japanese might have been more successful than some of the rest of us. We do not require a new inquiry to discover the answer. They make the trucks that people want for a price that they are willing to pay and deliver them on the day that they are wanted.

Mr. John Maxton: Has the Secretary of State for Scotland sat silent for all this time out of loyalty to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or because he will follow this statement with the announcement of his resignation from the Cabinet, in which he has totally failed to safeguard the interests of Scotland?

Mr. Tebbit: I think it far more likely that my right hon. Friend has sat silent because, as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I take the lead in making a statement on BL, not least because it spans the border and because I have the unhappy task of announcing a closure in England as well. Moreover, it would look rather untidy if two or three of us were jumping up and down to answer the same questions.

Mr. Den Dover: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be welcomed by thousands of hard-working BL workers in Lancashire, as it will come as a relief to them? Will he confirm that, because of the harsh economic facts of life and the dramatic reduction in the need for vehicles, there has already been a loss of about 3,5000 jobs in BL in Lancashire?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. I hope that these measures will lead to the success of Leyland Vehicles. We must understand that there has been vast over-capacity, which must be reduced. It now looks as


though there is a prospect of the company breaking even before too long at a volume of perhaps 12,000, or 11,000, trucks a year. At that point we could look forward to success and further expansion to regain jobs.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is the Secretary of State aware that Opposition Members object most to the awful dumping of people by making them unemployed in the public sector while selling off those parts of the public sector which are profitable? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this disgraceful decision about Jaguar will have an effect on the loan stock of the company, much of which is held by small investors and pension funds, which the right hon. Gentleman claims to hold in such high regard?

Mr. Tebbit: I must confess that I find the hon. and learned Gentleman uncharacteristically muddled on this matter. He seems to think that, for some reason, jobs in a state-owned Jaguar are of greater intrinsic value than jobs in a privately-owned Jaguar. I do not believe that that is true. Nor do I believe that the change will make any difference to those who have lent money to BL.

Mr. Donald Dewar: The Secretary of State will remember remarking a little while ago on the interest of the Albion work force in a successful British Leyland. Many of them are my constituents and while they are, of course, interested in success, they will strongly disagree with the suggestion that the closure of Bathgate is the way in which to achieve that success. Today, they will be wondering what is the worth of the right hon. Gentleman's assurances bearing in mind the catalogue of bad faith and broken promises that workers at Bathgate have experienced.
Can the right hon. Gentleman throw any light on the mysterious leaks to the BBC and the Scottish press only this weekend that Bathgate has been saved by the personal intervention of the Prime Minister? Will he note that we want to know how that story originated? Was there such an intervention, and what happened to it? Is he further aware that, under his stewardship and that of the Secretary of State for Scotland, we have witnessed the closure of Linwood, Invergordon, Corpach and now Bathgate—almost all the major centres of industrial growth, or hope-for industrial growth that came to Scotland in the 1960s?
That is an unprecedented catalogue of disaster that has ripped hope out of the Scottish economy and makes into rank hypocrisy the talk that the right hon. Gentleman has given us today, and which the Secretary of State for Scotland constantly gives us, about recovery in the Scottish economy? Can he not reconsider on Bathgate? I thank him for accepting frankly that the decision rested ultimately with Ministers. If we do not see evidence of the Secretary of State for Scotland fighting successfully to reverse this decision and to save the plant, his position will be untenable. He will have lost all credibility, and ought to go.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman is very strong on allegations of bad faith and the rest, but if he looks back, especially at the time during which I have been responsible for matters concerning British Leyland, he will find that I and my colleagues have done everything we can to back the company and its work force through extremely difficult times. That has included putting £1 billion of taxpayers' money into the company, often when there were strong

competing claims and when many people inside the House and outside gave little chance for the firm's survival. The hon. Gentleman should congratulate the Government on our faith and on the success that all of us — the Government and the company together—have had.
The hon. Gentleman must not expect me to know where rumours originate.

Mr. Ewing: It was the Secretary of State for Scotland who told the press that Bathgate was to be saved.

Mr. Tebbit: If the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) has a point to make, no doubt Mr. Speaker will call him. If the hon. Gentleman has a theory, I suggest that he advances it. The rumours did not come from anywhere within the Government.

Mr. Ewing: It was the Secretary of State for Scotland who told the press.

Mr. Tebbit: Really, it is impossible if the hon. Member for Falkirk, East continues to behave in such a disorderly and ill-mannered way. On closures, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is saying that I should substitute my judgment or, more correctly, that I should substitute his judgment for that of the board which has had such success in guiding the car group to profitability. I do not think that it would be right to substitute the hon. Gentleman's judgment for that of a true, tried and successful management, and I do not think that anyone else does either.

Later—

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, As we have seen recently in the House, the use of the word "liar" can lead to the expulsion of an hon. Member. It follows, therefore, that to allege that a fellow hon. Member has accused another Member of lying is itself a serious allegation.
This afternoon, during questions on the statement, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry accused my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Akinson) of saying that he —the Secretary of State—was lying. Inspection of the Official Report will show that there was absolutely no foundation for that allegation. In defence of my hon. Friend and, indeed, in defence of the practices of the House, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to inspect the Official Report? If, as I am sure will be the case, you find that there was no foundation for what the Secretary of State alleged, will you require that the Secretary of State come hack to the House, apologise for the falsity of his allegation, and withdraw it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall, of course, look into the matter. I did not hear an allegation of lying and I said so at the time. I thought that the Secretary of State dealt with the matter in his response—

Mr. Williams: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall read Hansard and see. Certainly, I did not hear the remark in question. Had I heard it, I should have required the hon. Member concerned to withdraw it.
I must tell the House, however, that observations from a sedentary position are not usually reproduced in Hansard. That is not part of the official record.

Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is that my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) did not use the word "liar". I


was sitting as near to him as any other hon. Member and he did not use the word "liar". The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, however, made an allegation that my hon. Friend had called him, the Secretary of State, a liar.
For the sake of future proceedings in the House, I suggest that if any hon. Member, including the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is to be allowed to make that baseless allegation against another hon. Member and, when he finds that the allegation is false, to rise in his place and put the responsibility for denying it on someone such as my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, the House will find itself in the most serious difficulty.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I refer you back to the recent incident which led to the naming of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who was not accusing the Prime Minister of lying but saying in effect what the Secretary of State said today—that another hon. Member was accusing her of lying. You, Mr. Speaker, named my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow on that occasion.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has slipped away—I know that he has other work to do and I apologise for raising the matter in his absence—but in my view this matter must be cleared up. If the Secretary of State is allowed to get away with what happened today, I believe that the House will find itself in the most serious difficulty.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have said that I will look into the matter. I repeat, however, that remarks from a sedentary position are not usually reproduced in Hansard, so I may not know. I certainly did not hear the remark. On the earlier occasion to which the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) referred, I did not hear the remark in question. Had I heard the same remark today, I should, of course, have ruled it out of order. As the House well knows, no hon. or right hon. Member may be accused of lying or of any other dishonourable attitude or behaviour.

British Leyland (Closures)

Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry of the closures of Bathgate and C. H. Roe, Leeds.
We have had several exchanges and I can put my argument briefly. This is obviously a specific matter because we are dealing with two discrete—if I may use that word — closures. The first is the closure of the major BL complex at Bathgate with the loss of about 1,800 jobs and the other is the closure of the bus plant of British Leyland—C. H. Roe near Leeds—with the loss of more than 400 further jobs.
The matter is important, partly because of the unemployment that is directly involved. In both cases, we are dealing with areas in which unemployment is already very high. In the case of Bathgate, it now stands at over 21 per cent. In addition, we know that further jobs will be lost among ancillary and supporting manufacturers, not only in the areas directly involved, but more widely in Scotland and the Yorkshire area. The closures also mean the end of the motor car industry in Scotland, which is a very important matter indeed. Many of us fear that the announcement of the closures means the end of the commercial vehicles division of BL throughout Britain.
The matter is urgent, because this Friday the Whitsun recess begins and we shall have no chance of discussing the matter then. Meanwhile, we are informed that in an understandable gust of rage, the plant has been occupied by the work force.
This issue is of the utmost importance and of great interest, particularly to those Opposition Members who are affected. I therefore urge you, Mr. Speaker, to accept my motion.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry of the closures of Bathgate and C. H. Roe, Leeds, with the loss of over 2,200 jobs.
I am satisfied that the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 10. Does the right hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?

The pleasure of the House having been signified, the motion stood over under Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business tomorrow.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of your decision to grant a debate tomorrow, it may be necessary to re-arrange the business previously announced. Perhaps I can arrange for discussions to take place through the usual channels, and make an announcement later this afternoon about any rearrangement of business for tomorrow.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Speaker: There are further applications under Standing Order No. 10—

Mr. Dave Nellist: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows what has happened, but if he insists, I shall have to call him.

Mr. Nellist: indicated assent.

Mr. Speaker: Very well.

Mr. Nellist: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the escalating effect of the coal strike on electricity generation.
The matter is specific, because this morning I was advised of the existence of documents recently considered by top CEGB management—internal documents for a board meeting—which challenge and completely refute the accuracy of statements made by Ministers at the Dispatch Box.
Despite repeated requests, the Government have responded to only two private notice questions and have made one statement in the past 10 weeks while hundreds and thousands of people—miners and their families—have braved the privation and poverty imposed on them by this necessary strike against Mr. MacGregor's "Plan for Dole". On the two occasions that we have heard from the Secretary of State for Energy and his Ministers, they said that the strike was not having any effect on power generation and that there were many months of stocks. That is a fallacy that is perpetuated either through ignorance or malice. An attempt is being made to con the miners into thinking that their dispute cannot be won.
Four facts underline the urgent need for a debate. First, the reports received this morning, which were prepared for the CEGB, envisage the dispute lasting a minimum of a further six months. The reports examine the ability of the power stations to endure the length of such a dispute. The documents state:
System instability was encountered over Easter due to large power flows from the Midlands area. The system was never designed to cope with these conditions since the south Midlands has inevitably invariably been a net importer of power.
Secondly, oil-fired plant is being subjected to the risk of long-term damage due to it operating far beyond the manufacturer's specifications. Thirdly, the board sees a real risk—and I stress that—of the possibility of rota diisconnections. For those who have not worked in the industry, that means power cuts. Those rota dsconnections may occur this weekend due in part to the bank holiday and also to the current bad weather.
The board has consequently initiated extensive studies to examine the feasibility of running the system with zero coal-fired plants.
The fact that the issue is important is highlighted by a further admission that is revealed in the reports. Of the 57 coal-fired power stations in England and Wales, only two, at High Marnham and West Burton—both in the east midlands — are operating at more than 50 per cent. capacity. The other 55 power stations are operating at under 50 per cent. Various plants are mentioned in the reports. For example, Kingsnorth at Rochester is

mentioned, which is the biggest coal-fired station in Kent. According to the information given to the CEGB in those reports, the station has only three weeks' coal supply left.
The Government's attempt to dismember the NUM is costing far more than it would cost to guarantee jobs and decent wages for workers in the industry. The CEGB admits to spending £150 million on oil in the Rotterdam spot market in an attempt to beat the strike. Those costs, together with the cost of lost production and the tens of millions spent on the largest police operation this century, will be passed on to the coal board, which will then undoubtedly threaten the loss of more jobs, or increase the charges for coal and electricity.
You have the opportunity and authority, Mr. Speaker, to allow a debate to examine the reality of the effect of the miners' strike action and the success which it is demonstrably having. The House can then expose the Government's cover-up of the true nature of power supplies, coal stocks and the ability of power generation equipment to meet the requirements of our working people during the next few days. I hope that you can take that decision, Mr. Speaker, and that you will allow a debate to take place.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the escalating effect of the coal strike on electricity generation.
I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Bob Clay: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement by the National Coal Board that supplies of domestic coal for the north-east area will be exhausted by the end of this week, leaving 58,000 social service priority cases and 23,800 retired miners and widows without coal.
The social service cases are those that have been agreed as priorities between local authority social service departments in the north-east and the NCB. They involve the elderly, sick, disabled and those with young families.
This is not a matter of rumour, speculation, claim or counterclaim from either side of the dispute, but an announcement by the NCB that as from Friday no further coal will be available to those people. The vast majority of them are dependent on coal for domestic heating and hot water, and a considerable number, who have Aga stoves, are also dependent on coal for cooking.
I suspect that if the NCB had announced that the power stations would be out of coal by Friday, the House would already be debating it, despite the Government's reluctance. For the many thousands of people I have described, who face the reality of coal supplies being exhausted by Friday, the matter is as serious as if the power stations had run out of supplies.
By this time next week, or even before, many thousands of people will be utterly desperate, but the House will be in recess. This is a specific matter because


it affects many thousands of identifiable citizens in a particular area. It is of public importance because in addition to the distress that will be caused in the north-east of England, the announcements completely undermine the credibility of the continual claims by the Government and the National Coal Board that there are adequate coal stocks. It is urgent because the crisis will arise from Friday this week, after which the House will have no opportunity for some days to debate the matter.
For the reasons that I have given, in addition to all the other dimensions of the crisis—including the continued and worsening erosion of civil liberties, the directions by Ministers to obstruct social security payments and the massive costs of the strike—surely there should be a debate before the recess.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement by the National Coal Board that supplies of domestic coal for the north-east area will be exhausted by the end of this week, leaving 58,000 social service priority cases and 23,800 retired miners and widows without coal.
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Diplomatic Immunity (Revision and Interpretation)

Mr. Greville Janner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the initiation by the United Kingdom of a revision of the Vienna Convention; to interpret the Convention in connection with the scrutiny of diplomatic bags; and for related purposes.
The Bill arises from the tragedy, outrage and humiliation of recent events at the Libyan people's bureau leading up to, including and following the murder of an innocent policewoman with a weapon that was almost certainly imported into this country in a diplomatic bag, followed by the export of the murder weapon by the same means together with the export of the murderer, all under the dirtied and dishonoured cloak of diplomatic immunity. This is the latest event in the series of awful murders that have brought blood on to our streets and which have resulted from the violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Vienna convention.
The Bill contains three proposals. First, the Government should be required on behalf of the United Kingdom to initiate a revision of the Vienna convention. Secondly, the convention should, in its proper interpretation and according to our law, permit the scanning of diplomatic bags by electronic means. Thirdly, the lists of diplomats and those of their staff who have the benefit of diplomatic immunity should be properly culled.
I believe that the need for revision of the convention is common ground in the House, and the Government have undertaken to put such a revision under way insofar as they are able. There is, however, very little chance of the diplomatic communities of the world being prepared to accept the need for such a revision, given that those communities include the very states which have been importing weapons, guns, bullets and bombs into this country in diplomatic bags—largely Arab countries in the middle east. The chances of such acceptance are made even smaller by the fact that the Libyans, who were concerned in this matter and with whom we no longer have diplomatic relations, declined to sign that part of the Vienna convention concerned with diplomatic bags. We must by all means try to have the convention revised, but if that is to happen within the lifetime of hon. Members now in the House they will have to live a very long time indeed.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is reading a newspaper.

Mr. Janner: That is no more than I expect of the hon. Member.
We must seek, therefore, to declare that the law is as I believe it to be. On this occasion, I find myself in the surprising company of Lord Denning. As the Government have seen fit to rely on his judgments on many previous occasions, I hope that they will see the correctness of the view that he stated last week in another place when he said that on a correct interpretation of article 27 of the Vienna convention it would have been possible and right for Her Majesty's Government to have prevented the gun used for the killing of the policewoman from coming into the country in a diplomatic bag and to have prevented it from going out in that way.
Article 27 says:


The diplomatic bag shall not be opened or detained
and:
The packages constituting the diplomatic bag must bear visible external marks of their character and may contain only diplomatic documents or articles intended for official use.
The Libyans might well maintain that bombs and guns are intended for official use, but in ordinary, decent diplomatic parlance and usage the diplomatic bag is for proper purposes and not for those which are obscene and lethal.
In those circumstances there is no reason why the Government should not have arranged for the bags to be scanned, why the people who owned the bags should not have been invited to remove the articles concerned, or why the bags should not have been returned whence they came. There was no need for the bags to be detained, and they should certainly not have been opened. If Lord Denning is correct—I believe that he is—there is no reason why what I suggested should not have been done. He said:
It seems to me that that provision does not prevent proper steps being taken to discover it, whether by scanning or whatever else.
He is referring to the diplomatic bag and whether it contains narcotics, bombs or the like. He continued:
They need not actually open the hag these days. By scanning and other scientific means they can well see things."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 May 1984; Vol. 451, c. 1455.]
The second part of the Bill would be a declaration that under the proper interpretation of the convention about the scrutiny of diplomatic bags, the Government would have been entitled so to act and could so act in future. That declaration would concern only our law, and would not involve the almost impossible task of inducing other nations to agree to amend the Vienna convention.
There are about 5,000 diplomats in the United Kingdom, most of whom are extremely welcome. They do a difficult and often necessarily dangerous job. We are glad to have them in our midst, but the Government should take great care to ensure that those who claim to have diplomatic immunity are properly called diplomats, their staff and families, and are not terrorists in disguise. They must be on the list. The third and final part of the Bill raises that point, that is, that the list should be properly scanned and culled.
I ask the House to give leave to introduce this Bill as a signal of its discontent about the state of the law of international immunity, of its determination to insist that the Government seek revision of the Vienna convention, and, meanwhile, its outrage at the lack of robust action in that terrible and disastrous event that occurred recently at the so-called Libyan people's bureau.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Tony Blair, Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. Mark Fisher, Mr. Reg Freeson, Mr. John Golding, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mrs. Renee Short, and Mr. Alec Woodall.

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY (REVISION AND INTERPRETATION)

Mr. Greville Janner accordingly presented a Bill to require the initiation by the United Kingdom of a revision of the Vienna Convention; to interpret the Convention in connection with the scrutiny of diplomatic bags; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6th July and to be printed. [Bill 182.]

Orders of the Day — Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 10 May].

[MR. ERNEST ARMSTRONG in the Chair]

Dr. John Cunningham: May I raise a point of order about the non-selection of certain amendments relating to clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill, which we are about to debate, Mr. Armstrong? I recognise how difficult it is to raise that matter now, but an important point is at stake, and the least I seek to achieve is to place the matter on the record. You may not be able to do anything about it, but I wish to put the point to you.
Amendments Nos. 85 and 31 to clause 7 and amendment No. 97 to clause 8 have not been selected. The Opposition believe that they are important because they would delay the operation of the clauses until the main legislation is agreed by the House. The clauses assume, in part, that abolition will take place as the White Paper proposes, but we have not seen the main Bill. Clause 8, for example, assumes that there will be no county-wide planning administration. In reality, clauses 7 and 8 of this Bill pre-empt a decision by Parliament on the main Bill.
Unlike part II of this measure, which does not come into force immediately, part III takes effect immediately after this legislation is agreed to. Therefore, the Opposition sought, in tabling amendments, to prevent that happening. Unhappily, those amendments were not selected for debate. Since Parliament has yet to decide on the proposal as a whole—we must complete our consideration here and then the Bill will go to another place—these issues should be discussed in Committee on the Floor of the House.
Similarly, other amendments would oblige the Secretary of State to make available to the House information that he will be able to gather as a result of the provisions in this Bill. Again, an important principle is at issue, that all hon. Members should have access to such information.
I regret that these amendments were not selected because the Opposition regard those issues as important, not only in their interests, but in the interests of the House, and, especially, the Committee.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I assure the hon. Gentleman that those matters were given the most careful consideration. I propose to adhere to my selection.

Clause 7

INFORMATION IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSALS FOR ABOLITION OF AUTHORITIES

Dr. Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 120, in page 6, line 40 leave out 'or to any other body'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:
No. 118, in page 6, line 41, after 'other', insert 'directly elected'.
No. 121, in page 6, line 44, leave out 'or to any other body'.
No. 119, in page 6, line 44, after 'other', insert 'directly elected'.

Dr. Cunningham: Part III will be activated immediately after the legislation is agreed by Parliament. Therefore, the powers contained in clauses 7 and 8 will be available to the Secretary of State immediately. Clause 7 gives the Secretary of State for the Environment a number of powers. As with other aspects of this legislation and previous legislation that the Secretary of State has presented to the House, those powers are important and, in some cases unprecedented, regarding the position they afford him. They give him certain hitherto unknown advantages with regard to overseeing, scrutinising and controlling local government.
The Bill is another example of more power being taken to the centre to the disadvantage of local councils and local electors. For example, clause 7 places a duty on GLC and metropolitan county council officers to supply information to the Secretary of State should he so instruct. There is no existing process for that to take place and, therefore, powers of compulsion are deemed to be necessary by the Secretary of State. That is the part of this clause to which we take considerable exception.
The Secretary of State will give himself absolute discretion as to which information should be made available to him under these powers. It will be solely for him to determine and, presumably, if disputes arise about the validity of his instructions, the only recourse that local authorities or their officers will have will be to the courts. It will be for the courts to determine whether these powers are being used reasonably or properly. Local authority officers will often be placed in the invidious position of being instructed by democratically elected local councillors to take one course of action and be subjected to a directive from the Secretary of State to take another. That will be intolerable for local government officers. For that reason, if for no other, we oppose the proposals contained in this part of the Bill.
It is also proposed to ensure that elected councils can be made to transfer information to non-elected bodies which will be appointed, directly or indirectly, by the Secretary of State and others as a result of this legislation.
A great many councillors and perhaps some ratepayers will take great exception to that, as we do. It seems a rather odd course to pursue. All those powers are necessary—this is what gives the game away — because of the Government's complete failure to have any proper inquiry into what is happening in the GLC or the metropolitan counties. The Government do not know what the position is on the ground. Those authorities, naturally, have refused to co-operate in their own demise. They have been elected democratically and no case has been made out for their abolition or for the high-handed way in which the Government propose to abolish elections to overcome the embarrassment of the voters having a say about all this. The Government are in a mess.
The Government have not set up an inquiry, an investigation or a commission to discover the position. The authorities have refused to co-operate and the

Government must therefore take more draconian powers to insist that councils and their officers provide whatever information the Government feel necessary.
The Opposition have said before that when the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary see a check list of all the additional powers that they have given to themselves and their successors in the Department of the Environment in legislation, they will probably pause and say, inwardly if not outwardly, "We may live to regret all this," as the Opposition believe they will. It may prevent the Under-Secretary from rushing into print about the powers of central Government as often as he has in the past.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): So that some part of the hon. Gentleman's stricture is not based on sand, I point out that he has misread the Bill in one small respect. Non-elected bodies are given no powers to require information. The power to require information is given only to the successor elected authorities.

Dr. Cunningham: I hope that I have not misunderstood what the Under-Secretary said in that intervention, but clause 7(1)(b) refers to
the transfer of functions from those councils to metropolitan district councils or to any other body.
That is about functions. I had assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the transfer of information applied also to "any other body" but if the Minister tells me that I am guilty of misinterpretation, I accept what he says. Perhaps we can return to that point later.
The first group of amendments seeks to limit the scope of the legislation to transferring existing council functions to directly elected bodies. In the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" the Government say that on reorganisation the London boroughs and the metropolitan district councils would become the sole upper tier of directly elected local government in Greater London and the metropolitan areas. They would acquire responsibility individually or collectively for the functions currently exercised by the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, with certain exceptions.
The White Paper, and the Secretary of State when introducing the Bill to the House, stressed that the GLC's and the metropolitan county councils' functions were being transferred to the London boroughs and the district councils. In practice, joint boards will account for three quarters of the metropolitan county councils' current expenditure. Although the White Paper proposed that joint boards will consist of representatives nominated by boroughs and metropolitan district councils, nonetheless, they will not be directly elected bodies as is presently the case. It is plainly wrong to suggest that the majority of their functions will go to elected councils. That will not happen. The GLC and the metropolitan county councils have consistently opposed not just the principle of abolition without a proper inquiry but the principle of establishing indirectly elected bodies for administering those functions, which have always been subject to democratically elected control.
We have gone over this point before, but it is worth repeating. It is odd that the Government should accept, and therefore change their mind, that principle in respect of the Inner London education authority but in no other case. The amendments are intended to ensure that the


principle of elected bodies can be put into practice only if and when the main abolition Bill is placed before Parliament.
From studying opinion polls, it can be seen that many people, perhaps the majority, are against what the Government are doing about the metropolitan counties and the GLC. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find anyone who believes that what the Government are doing has much sense—[Interruption.]—including, if I may say so, many of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, as I have been reminded from the Back Benches. Notwithstanding their reservations about local authorities in general and their own councils in particular, the public almost instinctively realise that the chances of getting a better deal, better administration, more effective use of resources, and more effective management of services and communities from appointed bodies, joint boards and quangos are remote, to say the least.

Mr. Tony Marlow: It is an interesting point that the hon. Gentleman raises. Will he tell the Committee whether he believes that the public feel that they will get a better deal on training, for example, from the Manpower Services Commission or from the Greater London training board?

Dr. Cunningham: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that we should have to compare track records. I do not assume, as he appears to, that the Manpower Services Commission will automatically get things right and be better. As he must know, not just in the Labour party and the trade unions but in many communities, including elected councils, serious questions are being raised about the Manpower Services Commission and its powers and attitudes to various schemes. It is a debatable point. I do not concede it one way or the other.
The fundamental point is that where the use of public resources and major issues of management and the provision of public services arise, we believe that directly elected bodies are by far the best way of administering those services and public resources. This is a democracy. We are talking about the democratic process and democratic principles. On the whole my experience is that people feel more at home and happier in the knowledge that they have the opportunity to talk to and question elected councillors and to go to open council meetings or to councillors' surgeries and raise issues rather than, as is increasingly the case, to be shut out of discussions that take place behind closed doors in non-elected and appointed bodies.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Will my hon. Friend accept that the Manpower Services Commission works through agencies and is grateful to have the assistance of local authorities to help in its activities? What local authorities such as the GLC do is to augment and assist the Manpower Services Commission. Therefore, there is no conflict between the two. Will my hon. Friend accept that the MSC is grateful for the help of the GLC?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes. My hon. Friend is right. In Cumbria, where my constituency is, the biggest single project under the MSC is organised and managed by the Labour-controlled Copeland borough council; that emphasises the point that my hon. Friend has made. A

scheme at Kells in my constituency is being run with the borough council as agent for the MSC. Unhappily, there are one or two problems at the moment, which gave rise to my original response to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) has drawn attention to what is common practice for the Manpower Services Commission.
Returning to the central point of what I was saying about accountability, I cite the water industry as an example of what is happening as a result of Government legislation. The public and the press have been specifically excluded from discussions about the use of resources and the provision of a vital public service—water. There have been problems with health authorities and accountability although probably most of the deliberations of health authorities are open to the public. Generally the trend of public thinking—and political thinking too, I would have thought—is towards more openness and a greater desire to know and understand what is going on and to have to a say in it. That is the whole basis of the argument for freedom of information legislation, which, I am pleased to say, is gathering momentum.

Mr. Richard Holt: I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that I could not resist the temptation to intervene when he refers to water authorities. Not only are the public and the press not now present at their meetings, but after nearly one year, not one water authority has set up a consumer body to obtain consumer input as was intended.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for supporting the point I have been making. I agree that these are important issues. That is why we make a sticking point in our approach to this legislation of the services being carried out by elected bodies. There is the world of difference, in the view of ratepayers and taxpayers, between openness and elected people — who can be defeated at the ballot box and removed if their performance is thought not to come up to scratch—and having people appointed, often by Ministers. That brings in the great power of patronage that all Ministers have and most enjoy, regardless of what they may say publicly. We have seen that power abused by this Administration in the "one of us" syndrome. I think I have said enough, if not to shut up the hon. Member for Northampton, North permanently, at least to give him something to reflect about, in view of his intervention.
These amendments seek to change the Bill, for the reasons I have given. I commend them to the Committee.

Mr. Marlow: In your elevated position, Mr. Armstrong, you probably have privileges which we as humble Back Benchers may not enjoy. One of those privileges may be not to have such devastating rubbish as the magazine which I have here sent to you in your mail. This is a magazine called "Jobs for a Change". It is produced by an organisation calling itself the popular planning unit of the GLC economic policy group. It is
Designed by the GLC Supplies Department (CRS) and printed by Probook (70664)
I presume that these are some of the organisations to which the clause refers. You will see, Mr. Armstrong, that one of the things recommended is that individuals should write to their Member of Parliament, whether or not they have already done so, insisting that he or she should oppose this —sic—"undemocratic Bill".
It seems to me novel that Opposition Members, who bleat so much about democracy and about this being an undemocratic Bill, should support this sort of nonsense which actually delegates members of Parliament to vote in a particular way. It further asks that Londoners, I suppose, should
Sign the GLC petition against the Bill, and get others to sign it as well.
It then says where petitions are available.
There is no doubt that this is an extravagant and expensive bureaucratic operation. It is using ratepayers' money to fight a democratically elected Government. It is using moneys provided—

Mr. Leighton: rose—

Mr. Marlow: I have no intention of giving way.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the amendments that are before the Committee. He has not done so as yet.

Mr. Marlow: I have every intention of doing so, Mr. Armstrong, and I am doing so now.

Mr. Leighton: rose—

Mr. Marlow: I have no intention of giving way. I wish to be brief, as I know that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.
In discussing the amendment, we are talking about the abolition of the GLC and the transfer of functions from that council to
London borough councils, to the Common Council or to any other body".
One of the amendments seeks to insert "directly elected body". When considering the amendments, it is important that we realise what is happening now. There are other organisations —I presume that they are democratically elected — that are run by the democratically elected GLC, including the Greater London training board.

Mr. Leighton: rose—

Mr. Marlow: I have no intention of giving way.
The board seems to have set itself up in opposition to the Manpower Services Commission. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to suggest that the MSC was delighted to have its activities augmented by the board. The document to which I have referred makes it clear that the main objective of the board is to undermine the Government's training objectives and those of the MSC. It states:
The training system is changing drastically. The level of skills is being lowered.
Is that blessing the MSC? It further states:
Large sums of money are being spent in London on training of low quality.
Is that helping or sustaining the MSC? It adds:
For many young people the youth training scheme is seen as useless.
Is that good propaganda? Is that good publicity? Is that a good use of public money? Is it right that the board should be fighting the intentions of the MSC, which is doing all it can in difficult circumstances to improve employment opportunities?

Mr. Tony Banks: You Wally.

Mr. Marlow: The magazine refers to another organisation—I presume that it is democratically elected

—to which Labour Members seem to attach great importance. It, too, is involved in the publication of the magazine. I refer to the GLC's industry and employment committee. You will no doubt be delighted to know, Mr. Armstrong, that the committee is setting up some free entertainment for Londoners under the title of
Jobs for a Change Festival".
Apparently, it is all free. As we all know, nothing is free. The free wine, the free cabaret, the free films and videos, the free debates on youth employment, women's employment, black employment and the free and spectacular laser show which are being provided by this monstrous organisation will all have to be paid for eventually.
When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State addresses the Committee, he will direct himself to the concept of transferring power to another body or, as the amendment states, to a "directly elected body". I hope that he will tell us whether it will be possible to abolish organisations of the sort to which I have referred. Secondly, I hope that he will say what he intends to do in the short term to deal with this abuse of public money and abuse of responsibility on the part of the GLC. It is responsible for a massive propaganda campaign in which ratepayers' money is being used, as it were, to plaster the pavements of the capital. Can my hon. Friend give some hope to our people that something will be done in a short time?

Mr. William O'Brien: I shall address my remarks to the amendment. I consider that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has misled the Committee. The proposals for reorganisation involve the abolition of the GLC and the six metropolitan councils. The abolition of those councils is due to take effect in April 1986. Many of the functions now exercised by those authorities will become the responsibility of the district or borough councils. These responsibilities include highway maintenance, planning, traffic management, waste regulation and disposal and housing for the GLC; and training standards, the arts, sport and historic buildings for the metropolitan councils.
New joint boards are to be established for other services, including fire, the police and transport. The new boards will not be democratically elected. We oppose the proposed abolition and the transfer of functions, for we believe that the prime feature of local government should be directly elected authorities that are accountable to the people.
The White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" summarises the Government's aims by stating:
Abolition of these upper-tier authorities will streamline local government in the metropolitan areas. It will remove a source of conflict and tension. It will save money, after some transitional costs.
Everyone is aware that that is a myth. We have the Coopers and Lybrand report, which makes it clear that the Government's assertion that money will be saved by the enactment of this measure is a myth and that the saving to the ratepayer will not be realised. The summary in the White Paper suggests that the abolition of the upper-tier authorities
will also provide a system which is simpler for the public to understand in that responsibility for virtually all local services will rest with a single authority.
A survey was carried out in west Yorkshire and the result made it clear that the majority of the people of west Yorkshire consider that the present system of local government should continue. The survey was carried out on 7 April by students of Leeds polytechnic. Its purpose was to produce a sample of the public's attitude in west Yorkshire to metropolitan county government in that area. The poll revealed that the people of west Yorkshire are satisfied with the system. One of the questions asked those being interviewed what they considered would be the most important issue if a general election were to be held on the following day. Only 1·6 per cent. of the interviewees suggested that local government would be a main issue in a general election. However, the Government are saying that they have a mandate from the electorate, following the 1983 general election.
It is clear beyond doubt that the proposed abolition of the county councils did not influence voting at the last general election. The Tories should drop that argument.

Mr. Richard Tracey: The hon. Gentleman must accept that people in Greater London took great notice of the commitment in the Conservative manifesto to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan councils. In Greater London the Conservative party won 56 of 84 seats in the general election — more than it had ever won before.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I allowed that interjection, because the hon. Gentleman was referring to remarks that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) had made, but the debate is going wide of the amendments now before the Committee.

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful that you have drawn the attention of the Committee to the amendment now under consideration, Mr. Armstrong. I will not be sidetracked by the question of the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey). If that is the general feeling, the Government should allow the elections to take place next year, and see what the voters of London and the counties will do.
The amendment will limit the scope of the main abolition legislation, which we have not yet seen. Nobody knows what will be contained in the main legislation. The Government want the Committee to approve a paving Bill in advance of the main legislation, about which we know little. Indeed, the public know little of what will be involved. If the Government were being fair to the Committee and to the electorate, they would bring forward the main legislation so that we knew what was entailed. I hope that Conservative Members will see the sense of the amendments, and give them their support.
I refer again to the summary in the White Paper. While the local services would rest with a single authority, and while the Government's political commitment to reorganise has been made clear in the White Paper, the case for reorganisation and the merits of the proposals advocated are inadequately substantiated. By any objective judgment, the White Paper falls short of the standards to be expected of a document intended to stimulate and inform public debate on the constitutional and economic administration of a major change in the structure of government as it operates in our main cities and towns.
There is almost no evidence to justify the Bill in its present form. The arguments for the proposed changes are not substantiated. There must be clarification of the points

that have been made. The Committee should give its support to the amendments which are intended to limit the scope of the main abolition legislation that will transfer the existing county council functions to directly elected bodies.
The White Paper makes no assessment of the transitional or long-term financial costs of restructuring, no analysis of the impact of the changes on the quantity and quality of the various services involved, and no serious assessment of the merits and defaults of the operation of the metropolitan authorities over the last decade. No attempt is made to assess the impact of the proposed changes on accountability to local ratepayers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that an inquiry should have been held into the Government's proposals before any legislation was proposed. I have commented on the lack of evidence given by the Tory party at the last general election of the need for change. The only way to test this would have been to hold an inquiry, or to put it to the ballot box.
Consideration must also be given to the inconsistent treatment of the shires and metropolitan counties. In the Division, I ask that support be given to this group of amendments to ensure continued support for local government. No evidence has been put forward to substantiate acceptance of the Bill as proposed.

Mrs. Marion Roe: To facilitate any programme of reorganisation, it is common sense that the relevant information be made available to ensure that the plans can be put into operation. Free access to information relating to abolition of the Greater London council and of the metropolitan counties will ensure not only that there is a smoother transitional period during the restructuring, but that the final outcome of the devolution of powers is workable. Unfortunately, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), some authorities, including the GLC, have been refusing to co-operate with the Government in providing the successor authorities with necessary information to prepare for their new responsibilities. GLC officers have been told not to talk to the officers in Whitehall.
Much has been said in the debate on earlier clauses about the lack of definite figures relating to the costs and savings that will result from abolition. One reason why no positive figures can be made available in London is that the GLC has made sure that no information is available on which accurate assessments can be made.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. The subject to which the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) is referring is the subject of the next group of amendments. This group of amendments is concerned with quangos. I wonder whether the hon. Lady is in error.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. All hon. Members must relate their speeches to the amendments that are before the Committee.

Mrs. Roe: I was touching on comments that were made earlier in this debate.
Speaking as the only serving Conservative member of the Greater London council in the Committee, I assure hon. Members that this is a typical confrontation tactic


employed by the present Labour administration in county hall to frustrate the implementation of Government policies.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mrs. Roe: I shall not give way.
I remind hon. Members that Ken Livingstone, when he was advocating the abolition of the GLC in 1979, said that it was not only because he did not believe that two tiers of local government were necessary, but
because I think it would have been a major saving and would have released massive resources which could have been put to far more productive use and I think that there would have been a lot of support on the Labour side for that.
One can only conclude that Ken Livingstone does not want information made available to the Government to prove that he was right then, and that he is wrong now.

Mr. Leighton: rose—

Mrs. Roe: I shall give way in a moment.
Bearing in mind the commitment that has been stressed by GLC members to preventing abolition, there is doubt that the GLC will co-operate in providing information to the Secretary of State, unless it and its officers are statutorily obliged to do so. Most of us who have been involved with the GLC appreciate that the Labour administration thrives on gimmicks. The sad aspect is that so many people are fooled by them.
To put Ken Livingstone's anti-abolition programme into perspective, hon. Members should be aware that, when this important item on the paving Bill was being discussed at the GLC meeting of 17 April, only one Labour committee chairman was present in the council chamber. It would appear that the leader of the GLC was so little interested that he decided not even to be in the council chamber to listen to the debate. I saw him walk out of the chamber as the debate started, and he did not return.
6 pm
In a subsequent letter to the Labour chief whip, the Labour chairman of ILEA expressed disappointment and disapproval at the lack of genuine concern shown by Ken Livingstone. Therefore I say to all who may be persuaded to Ken Livingstone's cause by the slick publicity campaign which is now being promoted in London that while Socialists sprinkle the word "democracy" freely throughout any arguments that they present, no matter what the subject, on investigation it becomes obvious that their understanding of that word is completely different from that of everybody else.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Lady admit that she is speaking as a GLC member and very much as a minority among minorities in that members of her party on the council are in favour of retaining the GLC? She is accusing Ken Livingstone of having made certain remarks in 1979. Does she agree—in my view, what he said at that time was wrong—that he was then saying that power should be devolved to the boroughs, whereas what is now being proposed is the creation of a whole layer of quangos, which means that the boroughs about which Ken Livingstone was speaking in 1979 have become unelected quangos?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. This is an example of how wide we shall get if we become too

tolerant. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) and all hon. Members must relate their remarks to the amendment under discussion. We have a great deal of work ahead of us.

Mrs. Roe: The answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is that his case—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. If the hon. Lady were to answer that intervention, she would become right out of order. She must keep to the subject of the amendment.

Mrs. Roe: The will is there. If I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman now, perhaps I shall have an opportunity to do so at another time. I assure him that I have answers. For example, I draw attention to the agenda for the GLC's full council meeting, which is taking place today at county hall. It contains a motion for debate tabled by the Conservative opposition relating to the purchase of properties by the Greater London enterprise board, known as the GLEB, which was set up by the GLC. That board—

Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. The hon. Lady is now talking about proceedings at county hall this afternoon. Is that subject relevant to this debate?

The First Deputy Chairman: Hon. Members can safely leave it to the Chair to decide what is and what is not in order. We are listening carefully to what is being said. As I made clear, hon. Members must keep to the amendment under discussion.

Mrs. Roe: The argument that I am adducing will become clear to Labour Members as I proceed. I am illustrating a point that is very relevant to the amendment that is before the Committee.
The Conservative opposition on the GLC has tabled a motion for debate this afternoon relating to the purchase of properties by the GLEB, a body that was set up by the GLC. It would appear that the GLEB is building up a massive land bank with the assistance of generous mortgages from the council. To date, the GLEB has—

Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. Surely we are entitled to be told what relevance the hon. Lady's present remarks have to the series of amendments that we are debating.

The Temporary Chairman (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) was asked by the former occupant of the Chair to relate her remarks to the amendment before the Committee. I have worked with the hon. Lady in Committee and know that she is able to do that.

Mrs. Roe: I am relating my remarks to the argument that information should be made available. If Labour Members will stop interrupting me and allow me to continue, they will see how relevant my argument is.
The GLEB is building up a massive land bank with the assistance of generous mortgages from the GLC and to date the GLEB has spent £13·774 million on acquiring 28 sites. From where did that money come?

Mr. Roland Boyes: On a point of order, Miss Boothroyd. The amendment is about the transfer of information to non-elected bodies. The hon.


Lady said that she could not get information. She is now quoting figures which would seem to disprove that earlier remark. A number of hon. Members are waiting to speak and it is clear that we are in for a long night. I am wondering when the hon. Lady intends to get to the point.

The Temporary Chairman: The clause relates to a narrow issue and I am sure that the hon. Member for Broxourne will come to the point. I suggest that if she is allowed, she will complete her remarks rather sooner.

Mrs. Roe: The point will become clear to Labour Members — I am sure that my hon. Friends already appreciate it—if they will allow me to to proceed. None of the facts that I am giving was made public, and that is why my argument relates to the need for information to be made available.
From where did the GLEB get the money for those purchases? It came from the GLC in the form of mortgages. It is obvious what is happening. The current Labour administration, fearful for the future and resigned to the fact that the council will shortly disappear, is ensuring the survival of the GLEB by endowing it with substantial assets. It will be possible to sell those assets to provide the GLEB with cash to finance its future activities. Indeed, in some cases the council has loaned money to the GLEB to enable it to purchase property from the GLC itself. This is, in effect, a transfer of assets — assets which belong to London ratepayers—to a non-elected, unaccountable, private limited company.
There are 11 such examples, including sites in the London boroughs of Islington, Tower Hamlets, Lambeth and Westminster. The GLC's sale of these properties to the GLEB has been done privately, under the seal of "confidential", and without most of them having first been offered for sale on the open market. The loans are repayable over 30 years, and in some instances interest does not have to be paid for the first two years.
If a Conservative administration were to do a deal with a private company, agreeing to sell public assets without first offering them on the open market and advancing public money to the purchasers to enable them to finance the deal, and allowing them to roll up interest payments, there would, rightly, be hell to pay. Socialists would be purple-faced with indignation. Yet all these deals have taken place between a Socialist administration and what is, in effect, a private company, without a murmur.
In addition to the properties acquired by the council, the GLEB has been advanced money to enable it to purchase 21 other properties. It will, no doubt, be argued by the Labour GLC and by the GLEB that some of the properties in question have not been purchased by the GLEB and that the companies making the purchases are not subsidiaries of the GLEB. However, in the confidential committee reports recommending that mortgage moneys be advanced, it is pointed out that although the companies are not subsidiaries of the board, they will be structured to protect the GLEB's interests.

Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Miss Boothroyd. We have sympathy with the hon. Lady in the propaganda point that she is trying to make about a debate at county hall which, I gather is happening or may happen this afternoon.

Mr. Allan Roberts: She is speaking in it now.

Mr. Bob Clay: Yes, and she is doing it in the wrong place.

Mr. Leighton: Perhaps my hon. Friends are right; the hon. Lady may be confused and think that she is speaking at county hall.
Even the paving Bill has not yet been passed. so there is no question of their being obligations on the GLC at this stage. One must ask, therefore, what relevance debates at county hall today have to our deliberations here. The hon. Lady's remarks cannot be relevant to the amendment. I appreciate her frustration—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am aware of the point of order that the hon. Gentleman is making. I urge the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) to relate her remarks specifically to the amendments, which are narrow in scope. I have been tolerant, but she must now restrict her remarks to the substance of those amendments.

Mrs. Roe: Thank you, Miss Boothroyd. I am coming to the end of my speech.
All the property transactions to which I referred were, until recently, covered by confidential classifications. In fact, the confidentiality of the relevant reports was lifted only last week after the Conservative GLC opposition raised the matter in a motion for debate on the full council agenda to draw attention to the disgraceful way in which public assets were being sold off in a partisan way. With antics of that sort occurring at county hall it is vital that officers from Whitehall and the successor authorities are given access to the information that will allow them to plan for London's future.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) spent so much time making an argument that was deployed in the wrong place and in an ineffective way. As a Member of Parliament whose constituency includes the area governed by the GLC, I am aware of the issues she raised but, with respect, those issues do not feature in discussing this part of the Bill.
The amendments deal with matters that I thought were clear, until the Under-Secretary of State made an intervention a little earlier. Clause 7 provides for the handover of information that is required by the various authorities, which are presently empowered to have that information and to run their areas—the GLC and the metropolitan authorities. Subsection (1) states that the clause
has effect for the purpose of facilitating the formulation and, in the event of their being approved by Parliament, the implementation of proposals—

(a) for the abolition of the Greater London Council and the transfer of functions from that Council to the London borough councils, to the Common Council or to any other body".


The amendments state that we should not empower the Government to have the authority to claim information unless that information is to go to a democratically elected body. The Under-Secretary of State will, I believe, assist the Committee on this matter. As I understand it, the words
or to any other body
deal with indirectly elected bodies, especially the joint boards which are at the core of the Bill.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) got it wrong when he said—I think this was just a slip of the tongue, and I should not like to make too much of it—that we were empowering non-democratically elected bodies to demand the information to which reference is made in subsections (2) and (3). We are not doing that, and that is quite clear in the Bill.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. The amendments seek to delete those words in the clause referring to the power to transfer information in those cases in which the information would end up going to a quango, joint board or non-elected authority.
The White Paper and subsection (1) establish a general provision, and that is a danger. We are giving an enormously wide power. The phrase
for the purpose of facilitating the formulation and … the implementation of proposals
is almost indefinable. The most fundamental question—it goes to the heart of the argument about the subsections — is: how will that phrase be defined? Who will decide? How is the recipient of a request from Marsham street to know whether the information requested is necessary in relation to the formulation and implementation of proposals for the abolition of the councils?
We have all heard the arguments before. We have not seen the proposals. How can someone be empowered to hand over information as part of the proposals for the handing over of power when the proposals have not been seen? I should be intrigued to know—last week, when debating these measures the Under-Secretary of State was modest enough to say that he did not pretend to be a lawyer —what his officials have told him about the definition of the limits of this power. We should always be cautious when giving any Government authority more power than is clearly defined. Our first objection—the amendments seek to control the Government's power—is that the definition is too wide for the purposes of this clause.
"Any other body" effectively means joint boards and quangos. The proposals have been outlined. The White Paper "Streamlining the Cities", supplementary White Papers which have come out in dribs and drabs, occasional statements by the Secretary of State and bits of information in response to questions from Back Benchers have made it clear that we shall start with a proposed joint board for the fire service in London and the metropolitan counties and a proposed joint board for the police and the public transport services outside London, but not in London. Obviously, if the Government have their way, London Transport will be a nationalised industry and that is one of the anomalies of this Administration. The police authority has no democratic accountability in the normal sense.
6.15 pm
There are other less obvious and less well-reported proposals. The powers for land drainage and flood protection are to go to the Thames water authority, according to the White Paper's proposals. The destination of the arts and museums is even less clearly defined. Power over the arts and museums will be transferred either to public trustee museums—there are some wonderful proposals for attaching museums, for example, the Walker gallery in Liverpool to the Tate, which is hardly the most obvious museum to which that gallery would be linked —or to the Arts Council of Great Britain.
Instead of something called a planning authority for London, a London planning commission is to be set up to advise the Secretary of State on planning issues. We do not know whether that body will be public, who will be on it, whether it will sit in regular session or comprise civil servants or elected members. A small, residual body is to be appointed by the Secretary of State to deal with what may be regarded as substantial matters, especially by

employees of the GLC and the metropolitan counties—superannuation, remaining funds, manpower and debt management. About a fifth of the present costs of most counties—I believe that is the figure for the GLC and for my local authority — is spent on debt repayment. Those matters will be taken over by another unelected body.
If the words
or to any other body
remain in subsection (1), presumably all or any of the members of those bodies, and all or any of their officers — their numbers will grow like Topsy, with officers filling the council chambers — will be permitted to demand information.

Mr. Waldegrave: That is the point I was trying to clarify. That is exactly what the Bill does not say. The formulation of subsections (2) and (3) would have to specify that. The hon. Gentleman is under the same misapprehension as the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). He is wrong.

Mr. Hughes: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I do not doubt that, if those bodies turn to the Secretary of State and say, "We need this information," he will say, "Please, may we have it?" The legal request will come from the Secretary of State, a Minister, someone in the Civil Service or an elected authority, whether it is a borough council or other body, but the prompting will come from all the other bodies.
One problem is that the other bodies which will be set up at various stages will have in relation to their tasks all the information for which the Secretary of State can ask. Not just the functions to which I referred will be transferred to the elected authorities. Tourism, for example may—God forbid—be run not on a London-wide basis but by the 32 London boroughs. We shall have "Come to Sunny Southwark" and "Come to Beautiful Brent" advertisements, competing with each other—

Mr. Allan Roberts: "Come to Flourishing Bootle".

Mr. Hughes: —and "Come to Flourshing Bootle" advertisements. All those bodies will be seeking information and that will be unhelpful.
We have a fundamental objection to the principle of joint boards taking over from elected authorities. Our objection is based on practical experience in all the areas in which those powers have been handed over.
First—it is obvious—joint boards are hardly likely to be very responsive to the public will. Members of joint boards do not have to stand for election, as we do. They do not have to explain how they spend their money, whereas we have to. They have contracts of employment and are appointed by the Secretary of State, or employed in some other way. They are not accountable in the same way that we are. Furthermore, once they are appointed, they fight to defend their existence. Once created, quangos have a great desire to expand their power base.
The amazing thing is that the Conservative party has among its members people who set about quango-hunting as one of their tasks. They produce lists of the quangos that should be abolished. We are trying to nip this exercise in the bud as early as possible because at the end of it more quangos will be set up by a declaredly anti-quango Government.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although the


Government say that they are opposed to quangos, since May 1979 well over 100 quangos have been established, including the one in the south London docklands area, and the Merseyside development corporation? I believe—perhaps the hon. Gentleman believes the same—that the Government intend to put ever more local government functions into the hands of quangos such as the Merseyside development corporation.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman and I may not agree on many things, but we certainly agree on that. I have lost count of the number of bodies that have been set up. The hon. Gentleman and I share an interest in that we both have in our areas dockland corporations that are not accountable. When we seek to serve the people who elect us, it is frustrating when there are bodies running parts of the constituency that do not have to explain what they are doing. That is exactly the problem that is being trailed by the proposals.
Secondly, when one has joint boards, for example for planning, waste disposal and something else side by side, in economic terms each board grows its own identity, spends its own money and plans its own budget. Economies of scale do not work. Whether we are talking about cutting the national economic cake, the county council economic cake or the borough council economic cake, one fights one's own corner within the constraints of knowing that what one wins, another may lose. There is an example of that in the Cabinet, and we complain when it goes wrong. It makes the system of establishing priorities more efficient.
However, joint boards will not do that. There will not be one authority — for example, the Greater London council — that has to allocate its resources among planning, the fire service, water pollution, the Thames barrier and arts and recreation. Instead, there will be different bodies, with their own budgets. They may be controlled and rate-capped by the Secretary of State, but it will make no difference to one body what the others are doing. That will not work in the interests of the elector, whom they are meant to serve.
The third major objection is that joint boards with single functions often make bad decisions. They often do not seek to reduce their workload, but increase it. They often do without the disciplines that are imposed by a regular cycle of accountability. They often do without the constraint of knowing that if the public are watching, they should behave a bit better. The valid argument has been put forward that if people waste money and put their hands in the till, it is more likely to be found out, but it is a sad fact that when things happen behind closed doors, there are often more abuses, and larger sums of money can be spent without anyone ever knowing.
The fourth objection is that joint board members have no incentive to do a good job. They do not have to depend upon public approbation or disapprobation. They have no responsibility to anyone other than the Secretary of State, to each other, or to their future. They do not even have the same constraints as people in private industry and business, and those working for their living who are not civil servants.

Mr. Tracey: On a point of order, Miss Boothroyd. I should like to seek your guidance. It strikes me that the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and

Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) would have been better made either on Second Reading or on amendments to an earlier clause.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I find the speech by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) more in order than most I have heard this afternoon.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to you, Miss Boothroyd. I try to make sure that I deal with specific problems. In a short Bill with widely drawn clauses, and with a short White Paper, many of the questions that we have asked are unanswered. I am trying to state the objections. I am sure that you accept them, Miss Boothroyd. We are enabling the Government and elected authorities to seek information for the bodies to which I am referring, which will not be capable of doing their job in the public interest. That is the view of the Liberal party and, I am sure, of the other Opposition parties.
My fifth point is that the professional bureaucracy that goes with joint boards is also unhelpful. That is where experience is most evident. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has had experience, and made a valid contribution. Unless things have changed recently, in the one exceptional case of the Welsh water authority, water authorities — as well as health authorities — are frustrating because of the inadequacy of their accountability. We read just this week in the papers that the Anglian water authority is to increase its rates by 14 per cent., and other water authorities will raise their rates by even more. They are responsible to no one.

Mr. Holt: The poor ratepayers of the Southern water authority will have to fork out £500,000 to allow for the introduction of metering in certain sectors of the community. Those who are charged according to the rateable value of their homes will suffer, without relief, whereas people in other sectors that could bear an increase in prices will not.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: On a point of order, Miss Boothroyd. I am sorry to interrupt, but I am slightly confused. Are we debating a paving Bill to abolish water authorities in England and Wales?

Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman did not just come into the Chamber as voting fodder and if he read the Bill, he might not ask such idiotic and insane questions.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I should like to give another example of the bureaucratic and inefficient nature of the water authorities, by referring to the North West water authority. The Bill is about establishing organisations that are unaccountable and non-democratically elected, like water authorities. I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many legal cases had been brought against the North West water authority, how much it had paid in claims and in solicitors' fees, and how many such cases had been settled with and without proceedings. The answer was that the information was not available, was not kept centrally and could not be obtained from the North West water authority. That is a typical example of the bureaucracy in water authorities. If they were democratically elected, the information would be available.

Mr. Hughes: I believe that most hon. Members are now trying to recover from the sight of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) at the Dispatch Box, with the lean that comes only from experience. I suppose that he must


have crept in after dark to practise. His point is perfectly valid. There are similar examples in the health authorities. Only this week clinicians from Guy's hospital in my constituency complained that the Lewisham and North Southwark health authority, like all the others, never properly listens to the arguments of its professional electorate, let alone the people whom the clinicians are trying to serve. Within the London area, there are four regions and in each region the London part of it is the minority. Within each of those areas it is impossible to put across effectively or democratically the view of the Health Service clients.
I say most strongly that it is inadequate for the Government, unless they respond and accept the amendment, to say that we should permit any authority set up under the Bill — any unelected body, named or unnamed, extant or as yet not even contemplated—to be the beneficiary of the powers proposed in clause 7(1).
The hon. Member for Broxbourne, in a speech that was, as I recall, largely irrelevant to this part of the debate, said that the reason for the clause was that the authorities in question are trying to make life difficult and are trying not to hand over information. Two points need to be made about that. One is that when the last local government reorganisation took place, there was the same opposition from the authorities that were going to be taken over, but there was no compulsion in the legislation bringing that change about.
The second is that when one is transferring power from an elected body to an unelected body, one cannot imagine that it is proper for elected bodies to say that they are willing to hand over anything that the new, unelected bodies want. The principles of democracy, which we pride ourselves on nurturing for some 800 years, normally try to give power to elected bodies, not take it away.
We shall come to how much information is available under future clauses, and if the hon. Lady checks, she may find that there is far more than she had imagined. Given the inadequacy of that part of the argument, the fundamental point is that the information is there, in the hands of elected bodies, and should be handed over only to other elected bodies.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Miss Boothroyd. You will recall that earlier today the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made an announcement on the closure of plants in Scotland and west Yorkshire, involving redundancies of over 2,000 workers—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. This is nothing to do with this Committee and the amendments that we are debating.

Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Miss Boothroyd. You will recall that there was a successful application under Standing Order No. 10, and the Leader of the House said that he would be coming to announce the business for tomorrow. Two hours have elapsed, and no statement has been made. Have you received any information as to when the Leader of the House will interrupt the proceedings of the Committee to make such a statement, or could a message be conveyed to him, as

many of us wish that statement to be made quickly because constituents are anxious to know when the debate will take place?

The Temporary Chairman: I understand the hon. Member's point, and his concern. I am sure that other hon. Members share that concern, and no doubt his point has been noted.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Like other hon. Members, I can see a long night ahead of us, and we may even talk tomorrow's business out, so I shall be brief.
The amendments that we are discussing would limit the scope of the main abolition legislation transferring existing county council functions to directly elected bodies. The need for the joint boards has been brought about by the Government's wish to introduce a Bill that will abolish the elections to the GLC and the MCCs in 1985. Why have they thought that to be necessary? I have not yet met anyone anywhere who supports joint boards. We have all had experience of such bodies, and we all know what they lead to.
Although the Government say that these boards will be manned by members of other directly elected bodies, and therefore it can be claimed that they have been democratically elected, the Government must know that that argument will not hold water. These members will not have been elected to the body, and will be responsible to no one. They will not be responsible to the district councils to which they were elected, or to the electors, and before we know where we are, history will repeat itself, and we shall have selected members of joint boards operating behind closed doors. That is the likely result, if we base our evidence on what has happened in the past. I heard one chairman of a water authority saying that his board operated behind closed doors because his members were not used to handling the press.
Is not the truth about the debate today, and about these amendments, that all this is being brought about by Government dogma? They do not believe it themselves. They made this plan, and they intend to see it through, whatever the arguments and the logic against joint boards —they have just closed their ears. I sometimes wonder how many Conservative Members really agree with this plan. If the attendance here this afternoon is anything to go by, Conservative Members are running away from the debate—it is too hard for their ears, and they cannot stand it because they do not agree with the Bill, and they know that it is wrong. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will give serious consideration to the amendments.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said, there have been surveys in west Yorkshire and other parts of the country. If the Government feel that this measure has the backing of the public, why do they not test that idea in the elections in 1985? The Conservatives are supposed to be the party of democracy, and Conservative Members do not mind shouting in the Chamber "Ballot, ballot, ballot" every time the miners' strike is mentioned. Why do they not ballot in 1985 to give the people the opportunity to say whether they believe in this legislation to appoint these joint boards and to abolish the elected bodies?
Is it not disgraceful to talk about this Bill before putting through the legislation to abolish the GLC and the MCCs?


If there were any Conservative Members with any fire in their belly, the abolition would never get off the ground. There is no case for abolishing these councils, which makes it necessary to form these joint boards.
I suppose that although we shall hear a few noises against the Bill, tonight we shall see the usual stream of Conservative Members going through the Lobby in support of something in which they do not believe. It makes a mockery out of democracy when that Government, at their whim, can decide that they will take the vote away from 18 million people, leaving joint boards without directly elected members, responsible to nobody, with no authority to fix a rate, and not responsible to the public. Before we know where we are, the Government will be changing the system of directly elected district councils into one of councils selected by the Secretary of State. That will happen as sure as night follows day. I hope that the Committee will support these amendments.

Mr. Tony Banks: Clause 7 is about the Government requiring information to be provided. That is a bit rich, when the Committee thinks about it. Here we have a Government who have positively refused to give Members of Parliament any information, but they are now requiring information to be given by the GLC and the MCCs. At the least, it is somewhat two-faced of the Government to include the clause.
The Conservative Benches are rather sparsely occupied, and we have another 12 hours of debate ahead of us. Perhaps Tory Members have cleared off because they cannot stomach seeing their Front Bench being butchered. The contribution from the hon.. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) at least proved that he could read, even if he could not understand what the GLC is about—

Mr. Tracey: rose—

Mr. Banks: Give me a chance. There is no support for the Government's proposals. The clause wants directly elected local authorities to provide information to unelected and unaccountable quangos. I am not sure that the clause details the full range of the quangos that will be set up. Will the clause be equally applicable to the quangos that already exist?

Mr. Waldegrave: I have long since learnt that the hon. Gentleman, like the character in the Thurber cartoon, will not be convinced by mere fact. The Bill does not say what he claims it says. The information is to be provided to elected bodies and the Secretary of State.

Mr. Banks: That information will be conveyed to the unelected, unaccountable quangos. If it is not, what is the point of the clause? If information will not go to the quangos, the Minister should accept the amendments. That would be the logic of what he has said. I shall gladly give way if the Minister wants further to clarify that point.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is making such heavy weather of this point. The first subsection details what the information is about, and the second and third say to whom the information will be given.

Mr. Banks: Precisely. We want to know what other bodies will be given the information. We assume that they must be the unelected and unaccountable quangos about which we have heard so much. If they are not, perhaps the Minister will let us into the secret. We could then all

discuss the matter with the same level of information. He has not yet revealed to the Committee the information that he possesses about the legislation. We are batting around in the dark because the Government are deliberately keeping us in the dark, and they have done so from the beginning. The clause and everything relating to it is part of the ill-conceived, badly thought-out legislation now before us.
I read with great interest the press statements from the Department of the Environment. I have one about a speech made by the Secretary of State at the Penta hotel at Heathrow. Perhaps he was on his way out of the country. I would not mourn the news of his long absence. In the press statement, the right hon. Gentleman said about the GLC:
we will dispense its services to authorities that already exist.
That is not true. Nearly half of the services in London will be transferred to unelected, unaccountable quangos —those connected with buying, the joint board for debt management, the joint voluntary committee for traffic management, the London planning commission and the board to run the South Bank. I advise the Secretary of State to look at the figures. Of the £867 million of net rate-borne expenditure in 1983–84, the Department of the Environment considers that only £436 million is transferable to borough responsibility — the remainder will be the responsibility of unelected, unaccountable quangos. I assume that those bodies will be given information from the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. An elected body should not be required to hand over information to unelected bodies.
I am sure that, in view of what the Secretary of State has said, the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendments.

Mr. Holt: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak at this early stage in the debate. As a relatively new Member I have little parliamentary experience upon which to call. My speech will draw upon 20 years of local government experience in an elected capacity as a member of a unitary London borough authority, a county council, as leader of a district council and as a member of a water authority.
I understand that the Bill is known as a paving Bill

Mr. Boyes: The crazy paving Bill

Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted some of my thoughts. There are many amateur paviours, mostly dealing with patios that they lay outside their homes. When someone puts down a patio, it is essential to have the foundation right. If it is not, the paving cracks and the weeds come through very quickly.
The Government have missed a supreme opportunity to took at local government in the round, thoroughly and in depth, and to have dealt with it properly. This paving legislation has many defects, although it also has some good points. It does not look at the duties, role and responsibility of the shire counties. In my heart, I can see no justification for taking away one tier of local government in one area while retaining it in other areas.
6.45 pm
As a member of Buckinghamshire county council, I can say that almost all duties and responsibilities have been reduced to a manageable and well-understood size. I represented a seat in High Wycombe and I had little or no interest in what happened in Milton Keynes. I am sure that the Labour members in Milton Keynes had little or no


interest in what happened in High Wycombe. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government should have looked further at the abolition of the shire counties.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we are dealing specifically with a narrow amendment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the business before us.

Mr. Holt: I accept that, Miss Boothroyd. As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has taught me so well during my 11 months in the House, I shall ultimately relate my remarks to the business. I am sure that you will accept my point on that, Miss Boothroyd.
While talking about the shire counties at the larger end, and adding to my point that they should be looked at in depth, I must say that any information should be sought also from parish councils. No one has established the rights, duties and roles of the parish councils. When, in the fullness of time, my hon. Friend the Minister reflects on the legislation—and all legislation is littered with reflections of where it has gone wrong — he will understand my point. The time to reflect is before the legislation goes wrong.
In the not too distant future we shall conclude our proceedings on the rate-capping legislation. An integral part of the whole aspect of what local government is about is the important information that goes backwards and forwards between those elected and those who elect. Nothing in the legislation before us, in the main Bill or in the rate-capping legislation concerns itself with the way in which parish and town councils can raise and spend money. I wonder, in an educative sense, how many hon. Members actually know the scope of the opportunities available for spending under the parish and town council precepts.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I must remind him that we are in Committee. He is making a Second Reading speech. We are dealing with a specific amendment and I must ask him to relate his remarks to that.

Mr. Holt: With respect, Miss Boothroyd, I am trying to say that the provision of information — my point relates to money and to the information aspect of the Bill — should also apply to parish, town and district councils. In the round, the current situation is absolutely fraught. It is like a colander. We should consider what parish councils can spend parish rate money on, and have spent it on in the recent past.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Parish authorities are not mentioned anywhere in the Bill. I ask the hon. Member to come to the point, or perhaps to bring his remarks to a conclusion.

Mr. Holt: I am talking about the importance of the provision of information. Some of the successor authorities will have parish councils within their areas. The joint boards may well wish to draw upon members of the parish councils. I seek to draw attention to the information on the financial aspects of parish councils which may or may not be available to the joint boards. There will be a conflict of interests between the joint boards and parish councils on financial matters.

Mr. Clement Freud: In the clause to which the hon. Gentleman is nearly talking, there appear the words:
or to any other body".
That might include a parish council, or any of the other excellent elected bodies about which the hon. Member is talking.

Mr. Holt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In mitigation, I must say, Miss Boothroyd, that on Second Reading I sat for seven hours waiting to be called, and was not called, although I did not miss an opportunity to rise. I therefore feel that the present debate gives me a reasonable opportunity to express my views.
The people of Hartlepool will want information about what Cleveland is doing, and people of Cleveland will want to know what Langbaurgh is doing. I want to know when my Government plan to bring in paving legislation to do away with Cleveland. Cleveland has no friends on either side of the House. It is a see-saw authority which moves backwards and forwards according to the political ins and outs of the day. It does very little except spend money, and no doubt it will fail to give the information which it will be asked to provide to the joint boards.

Mr. Tony Banks: Elections are a bit of a yawn after a while, are they not?

Mr. Holt: I do not seek to abolish elections. I seek to draw attention to the opportunity to provide a unitary system similar to that introduced in 1963, when Middlesex was abolished and the outer London boroughs were set up and were put in control of almost all aspects of their destiny. If the committees were open to the press and the public and if the information was made available, a great service would be done to local government as a whole. As it is, we are discussing paving legislation and an amendment which has neither merit nor demerit.
I believe that the mistakes that are being made will come home to roost. I hope that at some point in the passage of the legislation I shall be able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye — I hope that Mr. Speaker will be as indulgent as you, Miss Boothroyd—and read out a full list of the ways in which parish councils can spend money, including influence under class 4, covering propaganda and contributions. I need hardly say more to my hon. Friends.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I am sure that the House has listened with enormous attention to the hon. Member's speech. I trust that the Under-Secretary, while perhaps accepting that much of what the hon. Gentleman said was irrelevant, will accept that he has considerable knowledge of local government and that his assessment of the Government's approach should not be lightly dismissed. As an enthusiastic supporter of the parish councils in my own constituency I can understand the hon. Gentleman's affection for them, but I am sure that my hon. Friends do not regard parish councils as suitable repositories for the functions of the metropolitan councils or the GLC.
The amendments would bring the Bill closer to the Government's original intentions. The White Paper suggested that there would be only a few exceptions to the transfer of power from the MCCs to the metropolitan districts. However, it now seems that a vast part of the functions of the metropolitan counties will be transferred not to the elected metropolitan districts but to the joint


boards. Our attachment to democracy and our concern for common sense lead us to question whether the Government were wise to move so far from their original intention.
I subscribe to the theory that history repeats itself, and I am reminded now of the legislation introduced by a Conservative Government in my first Parliament. There was a reorganisation of water provision, the health services and local government, and the Government of the day made a howling mess of all three. The present Government are seeking to restore balance and efficiency, but I believe that the legislation introduced in recent years to change the arrangements of the early 1970s will fail because the present Administration are repeating the mistakes of the former one.
After the Local Government Bill was introduced in 1972, many changes were made in the Bill during its passage as the Government sought to show that they were flexible. They had suggested that, as there was a shortage of planners, we should reduce the number of planning authorities. During the passage of the Bill, because of pressure by one or two Conservative Back Benchers, they changed their minds on that point, and the Act which appeared on the statute book led to duplication and strained planning resources to the limit.
The present Government are approaching this Bill—certainly clause 7— in the same way. Originally, the Government said that they would transfer the great bulk of the MCCs' functions to the directly elected metropolitan boroughs or the London boroughs. Now, the opposite is to be the case. More and more functions are to be transferred to the joint boards. My hon. Friends have already pointed out that this is likely to lead to inefficiency, greater expense and a remarkably lower level of responsibility.
The Government have not yet been able to convince the people of this country of their case, and they certainly have not been able to convince those in the metropolitan boroughs upon whom the responsibilities will fall. The metropolitan boroughs recognise that the change is not likely to be efficient. The recognise that, apart from being undemocratic, it is unlikely to be fair. Until the Government can persuade the metropolitan boroughs that the change is wise, I suggest that they should not be in their present haste to implement these proposals.
New clause 4 can be mentioned in this connection. I am not sure whether or not we are to debate it in the early hours, but the point of that new clause is central to the amendments under discussion. If the Government can persuade the borough councils which will have to provide the personnel of the joint boards that they will be engaging in an economically sensible enterprise, they will be more sympathetic towards the legislation. They cannot be sympathetic to the Government's proposals unless they have evidence that they will be efficient. The Conservative party's record in the management of local government in the past decade does not inspire confidence among local authorities, and certainly not in metropolitan areas. The Government therefore have an obligation to persuade metropolitan councillors that what they will be about will be in the interests of those whom they represent.
7 pm
The 1973 local government reorganisation was supposed to save money. It followed detailed and intellectually respectable considerations, documents,

debates and deliberations for almost a decade. Serious words were written and published and grave consideration was given to the subject, but in the end we had the most inflationary exercise that the United Kingdom has ever experienced. Although there might have been other reasons for the inflation, the Tory reorganisation was structurally and inherently inflationary. Nevertheless, the 1973 Bill followed far more serious, mature and intellectually respectable study than this one. The Government must show the people in local government who will man the joint boards that their function is sensible.
The Secretary of State has yet to defend himself against the charge that my hon. Friends the Members for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) mentioned. Until he can produce evidence that counters the statement in the Coopers and Lybrand report, the Bill does not deserve to be treated seriously. Unfortunately it has the power to destroy democracy and to raise contempt. My hon. Friends the Members for Normanton and for Pontefract and Castleford said that there is no support for the Bill in west Yorkshire. There is none in south Yorkshire either.

Mr. Allen McKay: Indeed, there is no support for the Bill in south Yorkshire. Many people there are worried about what will happen to the functions of the county council when they are handed down to selected or "any other bodies". "Any other body" can mean anything.
I should like to put again the questions to which I am sure the Under-Secretary of State has had time to prepare an answer. If he has not thought of a real answer I do not want him to give the type of answer that he has already given. The question concerns people who will make up the bodies and metropolitan councillors who work for the county council. What will happen to them when the Bill comes into force? Will they be able to continue their role as metropolitan borough councillors bearing in mind the fact that they could also be on the so-called "other bodies" on behalf of the metropolitan council? They might work in the fire service, in the transport department or in the road service. In Barnsley metropolitan borough council, an entire ward of councillors will be wiped out if something is not done quickly. Will the Minister say what will happen to them?
The amendments attempt to draw the Committee's attention to what will happen. The quangos will take over responsibility for perhaps three quarters of county council finance, as they will be responsible for the police and for transport. We are to have selected people; although they sit on elected bodies now, they will not have been elected to perform the function that the Secretary of State will ask them to carry out. Moreover, they will take on a budget with which they have nothing whatever to do. That is dangerous.
In regard to quangos, will the process be the same as that which applied to water boards? Water boards used to belong to the local authority and then became the responsibility of selected bodies. Those bodies have now disappeared — because they were comprised of elected councillors — and became entirely selected by the Secretary of State. We are disturbed that the press and the public will not be able to go to meetings to find out what is going on, with the result that the bodies will become accountable to nobody.
In regard to the bodies taking on the police function, has the Minister considered what will happen when the police are accountable to nobody? Will they eventually become accountable to the Secretary of State? We have asked these questions before and the Minister has declined to answer them. They must still be answered. Although the Minister might not think so, the amendments are important as they help to explain why people in my area do not want county councils abolished. The Bill will create difficulties in metropolitan and borough councils because, as the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the main committees and the sub-committees have been selected the people who are left will have to run county council functions. Such people already have difficulty with their employers. Will the Secretary of State make it mandatory for employers to allow them time off to carry out their duties, or shall we need more elected metrapolitan borough councillors?
The Government have rushed the Bill and it is not necessary now. It should not have been introduced before the main abolition Bill. The Government have put the cart before the horse and have caused great constitutional problems.

Mr. Freud: I should like to speak briefly and particularly in respect of this group of amendments. Their point is no more than to delete the obscure wording "to any other body" and to write in the words "directly elected" which must be close to the hearts of all right hon. and hon. Members.
It would be fair to future generations who might read Hansard to point out that the debate on amendment No. 120, which will doubtless be opposed by the Government, is being attended by a total of five Back Bench Conservative Members, one Parliamentary Private Secretary, two duty Whips and a junior Minister.
The hon. Member for — I am not sure how to pronounce it—Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt)—

Mr. Holt: It is pronounced "Langboff".

Mr. Freud: I am grateful to learn that it is pronounced "Langboff" as I have seen it written but never heard it spoken.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh talked about the importance of parish councils. I believe that we are the most over-governed country in the world. Most of us, and certainly all of my constituents, have representatives at parish or town level, at district level, at county level, at Westminster and in Europe. If there is one thing to be said in favour of this great mound of representation, this tower of representatives, it is that all of them are elected. Each has a vested interest in doing a good job of work because, come the next election, he or she will be accountable to the people on behalf of whom he or she works. By denying the Oppostion these modest amendments, the Government are trying to formulate yet another body such as the water authority, the health authority or the many quangos that hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken of and against.
I believe that no Secretary of State or Minister has ever deliberately appointed the wrong people, just as no wine merchant has ever deliberately sold wine to infuriate, annoy or disappoint the consumer. However, when the Government try to put together "any other body"—as they do in clause 7—the great danger is that they will

be too careful, and so get it wrong. They will not appoint the right people. They will say that they must have a token woman or a representative black, that it is important to have both academic and non-academic people, and that there should be a representative of this or that profession, district or religions petsoasion. Thus, instead of having an efficient "any otter body", we shall end up, as ever with such quangos, with people who are so carefully assorted to represent all views that they are a rag-bag that does nothing at all.
In denying us these amendments, the Government will deny us the right to be represented by elected people and will appoint whomsoever should come into their minds. Is "any other body" to be an already established body, such as the Lions or the Buffaloes? Will it be the women's institute or the National Farmers Union? The answer is obviously no. "Any other foody" will consist of whomever ingratiates himself or herself with the Government.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Freud: I shall gladly give way, and I should like to say here and now that for the rest of the debate I shall give way to whoever wants me to give way.

Mr. Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman recall a body that has been appointed by a Conservative or Labour Minister that has not ended up, either openly or secretly, being Conservative-controlled?

Mr. Freud: It would be fair to say that the answer is "yes—outside my constituency". I am sure that much of that goes on in the country.
On this occasion, I simply warn the Government that, if this modest amendment is rejected, they will deserve to be in for a hard time. The few words "any other body" that we want to take out and the important words "directly elected" that we want to include are at the crux of our argument. If the amendment is to be denied us, breakfast will be late tomorrow morning.

Mr. Waldegrave: We have had a wide-ranging debate. Under your wise guidance, Miss Boothroyd, we have had Second Reading speeches on several Bills concerning the abolition of parishes, water boards and misleading propaganda from the GLC. With persistent nudges from you, hon. Members have occasionally returned to Second Reading speeches on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill. You must have been so grateful to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), Miss Boothroyd, who brought us back to the amendments under discussion. That was a great and difficult feat, given the point at which he took over the debate.
As often happens, I found myself agreeing with a good deal of what the hon. Member for Wentworth said. He was right to say that the Government believe that we should devolve as many functions as possible to the lower-tier authorities, and regard any attribution of functions to bodies other than the boroughs or districts as something that should be avoided if possible. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is, like me, a genuine devolutionist. There have been many devolutionists among the Opposition, although they have not always been as open about it as the hon. Gentleman was.
There has always been a strong feeing among Conservative Members, particularly in London, in favour


of devolution to the boroughs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) referred to that on Second Reading. That lies of course, at the heart of the Bill's origins. The idea that boroughs and lower-tier authorities should be the recipients of as many of the services as possible goes right back, in Conservative thinking in London, to 1894.
Opposition Members have used this rather narrow amendment — as you rightly described it, Miss Boothroyd—which simply seeks to limit in a particular way the sort of information that can be obtained by the elected councils and the Secretary of State, to argue against the joint boards. Some hon. Members would like, where possible, to devolve more radically, and in that the Government are very close to them. Others, of course, argue for the status quo. The amendment simply limits the sort of information that the successor boroughs and districts and the Secretary of State can seek. It would take information about the services that go to the non-directly elected bodies out of the Secretary of State's scope.
Of course, the Government have agonised over whether there is room to move yet further towards giving all these functions to the lower-tier authorities. In a recent statement, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that we should not take some of the joint board functions as being the end of the story, and that if in due course the lower-tier authorities could show that there were gains in further devolution, any sensible Government would want to consider that.
As a debating point, Opposition Members described the joint boards as quangos. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) has just slipped out of the Chamber, but he will no doubt return in due course. He described the joint boards as if they were going to be appointed. He went into a very philosophical thesis about the basis for any appointments to them. But of course, they will not be appointed by the Secretary of State or anyone else. They will be creatures of the lower-tier authorities. Members will be sent up to them by the lower-tier authorities, and those representatives will be directly elected members of those lower-tier authorities.

Mr. Jack Straw: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Secretary of State's recent announcement that the Government would consider allowing the transfer of, for example, the fire and police services to individual boroughs where they were satisfied that that was appropriate. The Secretary of State limited that possibility of transfer to after the joint boards had come into operation. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that a very large city such as Birmingham might make a strong case for the immediate transfer of those services? If it did, would the Government consider it?

Mr. Waldergrave: I suspect that the new administration for the city of Birmingham will make the same case just as strongly as the old administration did. The Government's policy is to say that we shall set up the joint boards first and then listen to representations on that point. I am very well aware of the strong feelings on that point in Birmingham and the west midlands.

Mr. Lofthouse: The Government may now intend simply to have representation from the district councils, but can the Minister guarantee that the bodies in question will not be selected in the future?

Mr. Waldegrave: The essence of our policy and of the legislation is to devolve powers to the districts and the boroughs, but it is necessary to ensure joint organisation through joint boards of a small number of services, which will belong to and be run by representatives of the boroughs. To move away from that to making appointments would be a complete contradiction of our policy. It would be like appointing members of the district and borough councils themselves, which would be anathema to us.

Mr. Tony Banks: Not all the services to be taken from the GLC will be administered by joint boards made up of borough representatives. Some, such as the south bank arts complex, will be run by appointed quangos. How does that square with the Minister's argument about devolving services to the boroughs?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. There are a number of such examples. The biggest is London Transport, which is going back to being a nationalised industry. Other important items, although relatively small in expenditure terms—for example, the Thames water services — will go to other areas. The driving force behind the Bill is a devolutionary move, but there is no point in denying that certain items cannot be fitted into that policy. Nevertheless, the great majority of services will go to the boroughs or districts or to their creatures, the joint boards.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wanted us to define further limits on the information to be required. Subsection (1) does just that. I do not think that it is possible to define this more exactly, although we may be able to discuss the matter further on a later amendment regarding a test of reasonableness. The information that the Secretary of State and the successor authorities may require must relate to the formulation of proposals for the transfer of services.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that in practice that will mean as much information as they wish and that the power will be as wide as they wish to construe it?

Mr. Waldegrave: The limit is twofold. First, there is the practical consideration that the workload of officials and officers of the lower-tier authorities in the transfer period will be very great, so they will not want to ask for unnecessary information. Secondly, there is the test of reasonableness, on which frivolous requests for information could not be shown to meet the purposes of the legislation.
I am afraid, therefore, that the amendments seem to me rather less wide-ranging and full of high principle than some of the contributions that we have heard. As my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) and for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said, this is an inevitable part of the process of moving towards abolition of the authorities according to the Government's policy. I have no hesitation at all in asking my hon. Friends to resist any attempt to delete the words in question from the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 295.

Division No. 311]
[7.23 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter


Anderson, Donald
Ashdown, Paddy






Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Barron, Kevin
Janner, Hon Greville


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
John, Brynmor


Beith, A. J.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Benn, Tony
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Kennedy, Charles


Bermingham, Gerald
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Boyes, Roland
Kirkwood, Archibald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lamond, James


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Leighton, Ronald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Campbell, Ian
Loyden, Edward


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McCartney, Hugh


Canavan, Dennis
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McGuire, Michael


Cartwright, John
McNamara, Kevin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McWilliam, John


Clay, Robert
Madden, Max


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Marek, Dr John


Cohen, Harry
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Coleman, Donald
Martin, Michael


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Conlan, Bernard
Maxton, John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Corbett, Robin
Meacher, Michael


Corbyn, Jeremy
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Michie, William


Craigen, J. M.
Mikardo, Ian


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cunningham, Dr John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Deakins, Eric
O'Brien, William


Dewar, Donald
O'Neill, Martin


Dixon, Donald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dobson, Frank
Park, George


Dormand, Jack
Parry, Robert


Douglas, Dick
Patchett, Terry


Dubs, Alfred
Pavitt, Laurie


Duffy, A. E. P.
Pendry, Tom


Eadie, Alex
Penhaligon, David


Eastham, Ken
Pike, Peter


Ellis, Raymond
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Radice, Giles


Ewing, Harry
Randall, Stuart


Fatchett, Derek
Redmond, M.


Faulds, Andrew
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Fisher, Mark
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Flannery, Martin
Robertson, George


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Forrester, John
Rooker, J. W.


Foster, Derek
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Foulkes, George
Rowlands, Ted


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Sedgemore, Brian


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Sheerman, Barry


Freud, Clement
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Garrett, W. E.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


George, Bruce
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Gourlay, Harry
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Skinner, Dennis


Hardy, Peter
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Snape, Peter


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Soley, Clive


Haynes, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Straw, Jack


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Howells, Geraint
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Hoyle, Douglas
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Tinn, James





Torney, Tom
Woodall, Alec


Wainwright, R.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)



Wareing, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


White, James
Mr. James Hamilton and


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Allen McKay.


Winnick, David





NOES


Adley, Robert
Farr, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Favell, Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Amess, David
Fletcher, Alexander


Ancram, Michael
Forman, Nigel


Arnold, Tom
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Forth, Eric


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Franks, Cecil


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Freeman, Roger


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gale, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
Galley, Roy


Bellingham, Henry
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bendall, Vivian
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Berry, Sir Anthony
Goodlad, Alastair


Best, Keith
Gorst, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gow, Ian


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Greenway, Harry


Body, Richard
Gregory, Conal


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bottomley, Peter
Grist, Ian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Ground, Patrick


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Grylls, Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hanley, Jeremy


Bright, Graham
Hannam, John


Brinton, Tim
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Harris, David


Brooke, Hon Peter
Harvey, Robert


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Haselhurst, Alan


Browne, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Bruinvels, Peter
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hawksley, Warren


Budgen, Nick
Hayes, J.


Bulmer, Esmond
Hayhoe, Barney


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Heddle, John


Cash, William
Henderson, Barry


Chapman, Sydney
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chope, Christopher
Hickmet, Richard


Churchill, W. S.
Hill, James


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Holt, Richard


Cockeram, Eric
Hooson, Tom


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Peter


Coombs, Simon
Howard, Michael


Cope, John
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cranborne, Viscount
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Crouch, David
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Dover, Den
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hunter, Andrew


Dunn, Robert
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Jackson, Robert


Eggar, Tim
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Emery, Sir Peter
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Evennett, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Fallon, Michael
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith






Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Key, Robert
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Rost, Peter


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Rowe, Andrew


Lamont, Norman
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Latham, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Lawler, Geoffrey
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lightbown, David
Shersby, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Silvester, Fred


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lord, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lyell, Nicholas
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maclean, David John
Speller, Tony


Madel, David
Spencer, Derek


Maginnis, Ken
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, John
Squire, Robin


Malins, Humfrey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Malone, Gerald
Stern, Michael


Maples, John
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Marland, Paul
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Marlow, Antony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stokes, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sumberg, David


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mellor, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Terlezki, Stefan


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Moate, Roger
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Moore, John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thurnham, Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neale, Gerrard
Tracey, Richard


Nelson, Anthony
Trippier, David


Newton, Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Onslow, Cranley
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Oppenheim, Philip
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Osborn, Sir John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Ottaway, Richard
Walden, George


Page, John (Harrow W)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Waller, Gary


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Ward, John


Parris, Matthew
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Watson, John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Watts, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Wheeler, John


Pawsey, James
Whitfield, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitney, Raymond


Pollock, Alexander
Wiggin, Jerry


Porter, Barry
Wilkinson, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wolfson, Mark


Powley, John
Wood, Timothy


Price, Sir David
Woodcock, Michael


Proctor, K. Harvey
Yeo, Tim


Raffan, Keith
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)



Renton, Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Rhodes James, Robert
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Mr. Ian Lang.


Rifkind, Malcolm

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 7, line 1, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (2A) below'.

The Temporary Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 64, in page 7, line 1, leave out 'and its officers'.
No. 87, in page 7, line 6, at end insert—
'(2A) No request under subsection (2) above requiring the compliance of officers of the Greater London Council or of a London borough council shall be made by the Secretary of State until he has consulted bodies representative of officers concerned with the proposed terms of any such request'.
No. 88, in page 7, line 7, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (3A) below'.
No. 103, in page 7, line 7, leave out
'Each metropolitan county council and its officers'
and insert
'The proper officer (which expression shall be construed in accordance with section 270(3) of the principal Act) of each metropolitan county council'.
No. 65, in page 7, line '7, leave out 'and its officers'.
No. 89, in page 7, line 12, at end add—
'(3A) No request under subsection (3) above requiring the compliance of officers of a metropolitan county council or of a metropolitan district council shall be made by the Secretary of State until he has consulted bodies representative of officers concerned with the proposed terms of any such request'.

Mr. Roberts: Clause 7 places a duty on the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils and their officers to supply information to the Secretary of State, the borough and district councils and, as we lost the last set of amendments, to any other bodies. As drafted, the duty is not limited to the provision of information for the abolition of the respective councils. If it were, it could be understood.
The clause requires the GLC, the MCCs and their officers to facilitate the formulation of proposals for their own abolition, even before Parliament approves the Bill for the abolition of the councils and the jobs of the officers, who are being required to co-operate in that way.
The GLC and MCCs have, since the abolition proposals were first announced, constantly expressed the view that any changes in the structure of local government should be preceded by proper inquiry in accordance with well-accepted custom and practice. The clause constitutionally replaces that inquiry by an unacceptable process which requires local authority officers to provide information to that end. The Bill therefore requires the GLC and MCC staffs to co-operate in the possible extinction of their own jobs without the usual procedures being followed and in advance of parliamentary approval of the abolition of their jobs and the councils.
The Secretary of State for the Environment said that this Bill does not prejudice the main issue of abolition. II: is clear that that is precisely what the clause is intended to do. The Secretary of State also consistently maintained that the abolition of the GLC and MCCs would produce financial savings. That is one of the main planks behind the Government's manifesto commitment to abolish the councils. But so far he has significantly failed to quantify those savings.
On Second Reading the Secretary of State admitted that the Department needed the powers contained in this clause because it had been unable to obtain information. The


Government, therefore, are now forcing local authority officers to provide information so that they can produce accurate assessments of the savings. In other words, the Government have never been sure that savings would result from the abolition of the councils. The clause proves that to be the case. The Government are anxious to obtain information in advance of the main abolition Bill, which will justify the main abolition Bill.
The staff of the GLC and MCCs are required to co-operate in the possible extinction of their jobs. That is an exceedingly onerous duty to lay on any employee. The Government sought to justify the inclusion of these powers in a paving Bill by referring to the short time scale for the implementation of the proposals. That time scale was set by the Government and, therefore, they have no right to use it to justify these draconian powers. That illustrates only too clearly the indecent haste with which the proposals are being brought forward. Furthermore, that indecent haste leaves no doubt as to why the Government require information from the GLC and MCCs in advance of a decision by Parliament to abolish the authorities. It is wrong to ask for that provision before the substantive measure has been debated and become law. Only when the abolition of the councils is a reality in law can the requirement to provide information be seen to be reasonable. The powers contained in the clause are an affront to the parliamentary process and should be significantly amended, if not completely rejected.
Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 are crucial. Their purpose is to place the duties to provide information upon the local authority only and not upon their officers. It is invidious to require local authority officers to provide information. If the paving Bill goes through, many of the councils will still be Labour-controlled because the Government will not be able to gerrymander a change of political control without elections in other parts of the country as they seem to be attempting with the GLC.
The duty to provide information will require officers to act against the instructions of their employing authority. There will be a conflict of duty. It is perhaps significant that one of the few precedents for imposing such a statutory duty directly upon local authority officers—section 23(5) of the Housing Act 1980, which requires officers to comply with a notice from the Secretary of State to produce a document—is expected to be repealed by the Housing and Building Control Bill currently before Parliament.
The only other precedent is the ombudsman legislation, which is completely different. He is an independent quasi-judicial person who has the right to require information to carry out an independent inquiry to produce an independent report— independent of political intervention by a local authority or in this case by a Government who are motivated by spite because Labour-controlled local authorities are resisting their proposals.
For an officer to deal with information outside the terms of his employment puts him at risk of being in breach of his duty to his employer. Common and statute law deal with contracts of employment, and the duty of local authority employees to an authority which might be of a different political persuasion to the Government, or to the body which is being set up to replace the GLC or the metropolitan county councils. It therefore cannot be appropriate directly to impose a duty upon any officer, as

this clause does, to make information available to another body. The duty to do so must be that of the authority and not that of the officer. That is what the amendments seek to achieve.
If the Government wish to create a local authority officers' Clay Cross rather than a councillors' Clay Cross, that is the way to do it. The Government are once again riding roughshod over an 800-year tradition of democratic local government. They are taking these draconian powers against professional people, 99 per cent. of whom are nonpolitical and who have their professional ethics and their loyalty to their employing authorities. The clause, if unamended, will destroy their impartiality.
7.45 pm
Local government officers traditionally serve the political will of elected councils — Tory, Labour or alliance—and carry out their political wishes loyally. They do not accept political instructions from outside.
The Bill is a further example of the destruction of Britain's historical democratic freedom. It will destroy the independence, impartiality and autonomy of local government officers—the communities' civil servants. That will be replaced by direct "Big Brother" political rule from Whitehall and Westminster.
The amendments require that before requesting information the Government should consult the bodies representing local government officers because the clause could turn out to be the National and Local Government Officers Association's GCHQ. Trade union rights of being represented in respect of one's contract of employment and duty to one's employer are being ridden over roughshod by the legislation.

Mr. Martin Stevens: The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned and effective plea on the basis that local authority servants have never previously been asked to supply the Government with information, as they serve only their elected masters in their own town halls. My understanding over the years has been that local authority servants and NALGO members are required daily, and almost hourly, to supply Governments of all complexions with information. I cannot see the difference in principle that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to demonstrate.

Mr. Roberts: Legislation requires the authorities to provide the information and they instruct their officers to provide it to Government.
If the local authority does not want to provide the information and legally instructs its officers not to provide it, the officers are not liable in law to be prosecuted. The elected councillors who have taken the political decision are liable under the legislation. The local authority and not the officers will be responsible. That is the important distinction.
The Government are trying to suggest that the appointed bodies which will take over from the GLC and the metropolitan county councils are democratic because they are indirectly appointed councillors. The legislation goes over the heads of those indirectly appointed bodies and directly instructs the officers to answer to the Government's political will and not to their employers as under their contract of employment.

Mr. Lofthouse: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Court of Appeal has held that information acquired by local


government offices is the property of the council, and that it is for the council to decide what it does with the information?

Mr. Roberts: A Court of Appeal decision was made in 1982. In the case R. v City of Birmingham D. C., Lord Justice Donaldson said:
As I have already said, all relevant information acquired by a local authority's social workers in the course of their duties, whether or not it be confidential, is acquired on behalf of the local authority, and becomes the authority's information.
The point has now been clearly established that all information relating to the local authority belongs to the local authority and not to any one or more of its officers. How that information is to be treated and to whom it is made available is a matter for the authority alone to decide.
That decision reinforced what has been enshrined in our constitution about the relationship between local government officers and their councils. If unamended the clause will ride roughshod over that principle.
Amendment No. 103 seeks to limit the duty to provide information to an officer appointed by the council for that purpose—"the proper officer." As drafted, subsections (2) and (3) are open-ended and place no restriction on the number or level of officers through whom and to whom approaches for information may be made. Can hon. Members imagine what chaos there would be if civil servants acting on behalf off the Secretary of State approached officers at all levels within an authority requesting information? Of course, if the amendment were carried, the approach would be to the chief executive or another senior officer, who would be appointed as the proper Officer. I can see no reason why the Government should not accept the amendment.
In the run-up to the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan councils and the transfer of functions to the London boroughs, the metropolitan districts and other bodies, the staffs of the GLC and the metropolitan councils are likely to be depleted. Inevitably people will leave to go to other work. Staff me likely to be under great pressure in continuing to maintain existing services. The proposals outlined in the legislation will increase the pressure and make it very difficult for the staffs off local authorities to co-operate with the Government, even if they wanted to.
I hope that the Government will support and accept the amendments. It is obvious that the clause unamended is an attempt by the Government to try to get the officers the councils that are to be abolished to do their dirty work for them in making the case that they have so far failed to make for the abolition of the councils. The involvement through legislation in this draconian manner of the officers of local authorities in the destruction of their own authorities over the heads of their employers and the destruction of their own jobs is like passing legislation to enforce people to become quislings. It is like making them into Judases without offering them the pieces of silver. This is the kind of legislation that the Government are putting forward.
This is an insult to the democratic local government tradition that has existed in this country for so long. It is an attack not just on Labour-controlled local authorities but on the democratic independence of local government officers and their right to be accountable only to the authorities that employ them.

Mr. Tracey: It falls to welcome the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) to his party's Front

Bench. I must confess that I was slightly surprised to notice earlier that none of the recognised Opposition Front Bench spokesmen were here to listen to the most important arguments—or so Opposition Members tell us—that are being put forward. While I welcome the hon. Member for Bootle to the Front Bench, methinks he doth protest too much because I suspect that this group of amendments tabled by the Opposition is more of a red herring than a Serious proposal.
The information which local authorities have is public information; certainly it belongs to the member of the authority, but the officers work within an authority on behalf of those who are elected and on behalf of the members of the authority. The clause would probably have read just as well without the words "and its officers". Appropriate information will be essential to the Government, to the transitional authority and to the borough councils. In recent months there has been a sizeable attempt, particularly by the GLC of which I have special knowledge as a London Member, but no doubt by the metropolitan counties too, to balk the plans of the Government that are embodied in the Bill and will be included in the later Bill to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties.
This clause is one of the most important in the legislation. We have had lengthy debates about constitutional points which made headlines perhaps more because the speeches were made by eminent Members than because of the importance of the points. We are coming to the real meat of the Bill in this clause which deals with information and in later clauses about consultation in regard to the financial provisions for the year 1985–86.
When the transitional council and the borough councils are moving towards taking over the powers which were previously vested in the GLC and the metropolitan councils, they will need a great deal of information statistics and background about what is planned, contracts and so on. We heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) about apparently secret manoeuvres that have been going on between the GLC and the Greater London enterprise board about vital information which the transitional councils will need as they take over the powers.
In my view clause 7 is not strong enough. In the way it deals with the call for information it makes no attempt to prescribe the manner of the response to each request, either in terms of time or content. We should be trying to find ways to strengthen this clause in another place. There are no sanctions for non-compliance. That aspect should be examined in greater depth.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Member tell us why he is calling for greater sanctions now when the precedent for this, the legislation dealing with the transfer of local government functions from one body to another, had no such provision, and worked?

Mr. Tracey: I believe it is a weakness of the clause that there are no sanctions for non-compliance and no specific details about the manner of the response to requests for information. It will be vital that the information to be handed over by the GLC and the metropolitan councils should be as full as possible and there should be a time limit on the responses and specific guidance on their nature and content. The most important bodies seeking


information will be the transitional councils. Should we not be making provision in the legislation to enable the interim councils to ask for information in advance of 1 April 1985?
When the Greater London council ends its life in 1985, the interim council could come into power and be short of real information, or else information would need to be co-ordinated through many sources, and that process would involve the Government and the borough councils that make up the interim council. Perhaps the council should have the power to command information in advance of 1 April 1985.
We are discussing amendments to a vital clause that is designed to ensure a businesslike handover of the government of London and of the metropolitan councils. It should be our aim to achieve the most efficient handover that is possible in all the circumstances.

8 pm

Mr. Chris Smith: I support the amendments. I do not believe that they represent a red herring in the argument, despite the assertions of the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey). The hon. Gentleman cannot say that the clause and the provisions that it includes get to what he calls the real meat of the Bill and that the clause is vital, and at the same time say that when the Opposition produce detailed arguments about the way in which the Government intend to operate the provisions in the clause they are laying red herrings to the central argument. Our arguments are important and they relate to a number of important points of principle, especially the principle of how and for whom local government officers and officials should be working.
The clause requires — the word is "shall" — local government officers to provide information which is required of them. The word "request" appears in the clause as well. Perhaps a more appropriate phrase would be "as required or demanded". The necessity of providing the information is a duty that is placed upon the officers of an existing directly elected local authority, and that is the nub of the argument.
An employee has a right to know who his employer is and for whom he is expected to be working. If someone else comes along waving a piece of legislation in his hand —he need not be the Secretary of State; it could be the representative of a borough council or another elected authority for whom the said employee is not working and by whom that person was not employed—and requires the employee to provide information, that requirement will undermine the relationship between employee and employer. That is a fundamental and crucial issue. It means that someone may be required to work for someone who is not his employer. The relationship between employee and employer, which is undermined by that simple fact, is an extremely important one and it is crucial that we realise precisely what the clause is doing and what the amendments seek to avoid.
There are other arguments. One was advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), whom I must congratulate on an extremely fine debut on the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that it will be the first of many Front Bench contributions from my hon. Friend. He mentioned the traditional independence of council officers. In the past, they have been expected effectively

to work for two groups. They receive instructions from political and elected councillors. Secondly, they operate within the framework of law which governs local government functions. If the Bill is enacted, they will be subject to a further requirement; the Government are seeking to require them to operate in accordance with the specific instructions of others apart from those who are in authority over them. That is very different from operating within the existing law and the principles of legislation that have been laid down by Parliament. The Government are seeking to authorise the Secretary of State, a borough councillor or anyone else who may be referred to in the clause, to direct the work of officers of another elected body.
It is surely only reasonable to ask the Secretary of State to consult bodies that represent council officers before taking action. Two of the amendments before us merely place on the Secretary of State a requirement to consult before taking action. Surely, in all reasonableness, the Secretary of State or a borough council, when taking such a drastic step as seeking to instruct and require actions from an officer of another local authority, should at the very least consult the bodies that represent that officer. That becomes even more important when we consider that the relationship between employer and employee is being undermined. The bodies that represent employees who are placed in that position, especially trade unions, should be consulted before the Secretary of State takes action.
It must be recognised that the clause is a recipe for unworkability. This was touched on by the hon. Member for Surbiton when he said that the clause contains no sanctions for non-compliance. He advanced that as an argument in support of the clause, but I would advance it as an argument for the amendments. There are no sanctions in the clause for non-compliance and it is inevitable that there will be clashes when different instructions are issued to the same officers. One council will instruct an officer not to provide information and the representatives of another borough council, waving legislation in their hand, will instruct the officer to provide the information. The poor old officer will be stuck in the middle, not knowing to whom he should respond.
It is relevant to recall the legal actions that took place between Bromley and the GLC. That recollection leads me to think that there may be mischievous actions by many borough councils in London under the terms of the clause. History should lead us to expect that there will be many such actions. If there are, pain and difficulty will be imposed on local government officers and much time will be wasted by those officers in deciding whether to follow instructions from their employers or to accede to the request which has been made of them. Ratepayers' money will be wasted and the confusion generated will be detrimental to the smooth running of local government, in which, supposedly, we should all be interested.
I hope that the Government will respond to our arguments, but I will be surprised if they do. Nevertheless, there is always hope that the one hundredth sheep that gets lost may be rescued. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are the 100 sheep?"] The sheep have a habit of appearing when the Division bell rings. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them and they all seem to follow just one person.
The clause unamended will undermine the status of employees in local authorities, the traditional impartiality of local government officers and the operation and working of local government, if information is requested


in this way. The Government should accept at least those amendments that require them to consult representative bodies of the officers concerned before embarking on the foolish course which they seem to have followed in drafting the clause.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: The amendments before the Committee and clause 7 indicate the desperate position of the Government. I shall comment briefly on the principle underlying clause 7 before examining some details in relation to local authority officers.
In clause 7, the Government appear to be trying to force the pace of local government change because they have not had the courage to hold an impartial inquiry into the structure and financing of local government. This has meant that they have failed to achieve consensus and support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), in a debate on earlier amendments, referred to the opinion poll that has taken place in west Yorkshire which showed that only 11 per cent. of those questioned wanted the powers of central Government to be increased, and only 19 per cent. favoured the option of joint boards towards which the Government are moving. In a recent west Yorkshire county council by-election, there was a swing to the Labour party as against 1981, which itself was a year of great popularity for the Labour party. This gave a clear indication that the people of west Yorkshire rejected the sort of proposals that the Government are putting forward. Because the Government have no consensus, and have not had the courage to come forward with an impartial inquiry, they are now forced to impose a duty on each local authority officer. This is the road of cowardice that any Government bankrupt in ideas will take. It imposes a duty on those who are least able to defend themselves.
I wish to put several specific questions to the Under-Secretary of State. First, who will define the relevant information? Will it be the district council, the Secretary of State, the about-to-be-abolished Greater London council, the metropolitan council or the officer? If there is a dispute, will it finish up in the law courts? If so, are the Government not bringing forward a set of proposals as a result of which the lawyers will do very well, but which will create chaos in the administration of local government?

Mr. Cohen: Would my hon. Friend not accept that, if many disputes go into the courts and take a long time to be resolved, and the information is not handed over, the Bill in effect will have a much longer life than the Government have hitherto stated?

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is correct. Although the legislation is entitled the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, one has to recognise that there is no limit on the interim period.
The Committee has before it an abolishing Bill—an open-ended Bill. The Under-Secretary and his hon. Friends in the Conservative party may well decide to use the law courts as a means to delay bringing forward their proposals. The law courts will have to make a judgment on whether each local authority or local authority officer is correct in withholding information. While those issues

are before the court, one can only conclude, as does my hon. Friend, that the Government cannot go ahead with proposals for replacing the metropolitan councils.
The second detailed question that I wish to put to the Under-Secretary is one about which the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) was very honest.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: From his experience of local government, has the hon. Gentleman any recollection under current legislation of an occasion on which an officer of a district council has refused to furnish information to any Secretary of State?

Mr. Fatchett: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman raises that point. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) met the point earlier when he said that the information provided by local authority officers at present is provided under the jurisdiction and authority of the elected members. That may well not exist in the circumstances envisaged in the Bill. Therefore, I think that the hon. Gentleman's example is not particularly relevant.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I apologise for pressing the point, but I am asking the hon. Gentleman whether he has had experience in past years of an occasion on which an officer of a district council, a county council, or any other authority for that matter, has ever refused to supply information to any Secretary of State.

Mr. Fatchett: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman may not yet have got round to reading the Bill. The hon. Gentleman seems not to realise that the Bill takes authority away from elected members, and places it in indirectly elected bodies. That is a unique set of circumstances in which the elected members may well feel that they do riot want to provide the Government with the necessary information. In those circumstances, there will be a substantial difference in that, in the past, local authority officers have always provided information to the Government with the authority of their elected members, which will not necessarily be the case in future. If the hon. Gentleman were to discuss the matter with his hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton, he would realise that my point is in essence the point that was made by the hon. Member for Surbiton. The hon. Member for Surbiton wanted to impose sanctions, because he realised that we were dealing with a new set of circumstances.
I refer next to the second point which I wish to put to the Under-Secretary of State. Indeed, the hon. Member for Surbiton spoke about sanctions in what I thought was an honest approach. He was not bothered about the details of local government, local government services or democracy. He was concerned only with getting rid of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. He said, in effect, "If anything like a democratic organisation stands in our way, let us bulldoze over it, let us impose sanctions on it, and get on with the business." We have observed that sort of approach to politics in other parts of the world. I suspect that this intolerance of democracy is well represented by the hon. Member for Surbiton, and is deeply rooted in the Conservative party.
If a local authority officer says that he is not prepared to provide the information, or that it is not relevant, and the casé goes to court where the court decides that the information should be supplied, and that the information is relevant, is it not possible for that local authority officer,


continuing to act under die orders given to him by his elected members, and acting in accordance with his conscience, to be sent to prison for contempt of court? Is it possible that, for the first time in the history of local government, local officers will be in court for being loyal to their elected members and their consciences? There are sanctions — the hon. Member for Surbiton must be aware of that—although I have no doubt that, when he replies, the Under-Secretary will pretend that they do not exist.
Why do the Government feel it essential to impose such a duty on local government officers? Is it because it is easy to finger them, calling them bureaucrats, paid officials and people who are dependent in some way on them for their salaries? If not, why not simply leave the duty on individual local authorities? Perhaps the Government would rather not take that course because the GLC and the metropolitan counties comprise people who have been elected and who therefore have popular support. The Government do not want to no the risk of opposition from those who have been democratically elected, and hence they impose this intolerable duty on the paid officials of local government.
This is a clause of political cowardice and I fear that, when the Under-Secretary replies, he will prove to be a political coward, a Minister who is imposing on local government officers a duty to carry out die evil deeds of the Prime Minister, to whom he does not have the courage to stand up and say that this is unnecessary legislation.

Mr. O'Brien: I shall direct my remarks to amendments Nos. 64 and 103. As has been made clear, clause 7 places a duty on the GLC, the metropolitan county councils and their officers to supply information to the Secretary of State and the borough and district councils to facilitate this measure of abolition.
My hon. Friends have pointed out how difficult it will be to operate the clause. The GLC and metropolitan county councils have consistently said that any changes in the structure of local government should be preceded by a proper inquiry. They have pointed out that for at least 100 years, all such major changes have been preceded by such an inquiry and that it is established custom and practice, perhaps even a constitutional right, for an inquiry to be held.
Those issues ware dealt with on Second Reading even by some Conservative Members. Academics and local government commentators argue that, with such important issues at stake, the public have a right to the sort of impartial inquiry that has previously accompanied major changes of this kind. The Secretary of State has consistently maintained, however, that abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils would produce significant financial savings. That has been his only argument in justification of the proposal.
Amendment No. 64 recognises the legal position. The Court of Appeal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) pointed out, has held that information, whether or not confidential, acquired by local authority officers in the course of their duties is the property of the authority and not of individual officers. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) made the position clear when he spoke of the Court of Appeal's decision in these matters.
How that information is to be treated and to whom it is to be made available is for the authority alone to decide, and by proposing to place a duty on officers to furnish information which belongs to their employers, the Bill seeks to interfere not only with the normal considerations of confidentiality but with the proper relationship between employer and employee. That can only have the effect of upsetting to an unacceptable degree the trust which must exist between the authority and its officers.
A similar provision exists in section 23(5) of the Housing Act 1980. That provision is generally regarded as unsatisfactory and has been the subject of reference to various courts. It is widely expected that its repeal will be sought in the Housing and Building Control Bill which is now before the other place.
If the Government are determined to proceed with clause 7, they should place the responsibility on authorities and not seek to create intolerable conflicts of duty for local government officers.
Amendment No. 103 would set a reasonable limit on the open-ended requirements of subsections (2) and (3) which, as drafted, place no restriction on the number or level of officers who can be required to furnish information. In tie run-up to the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils and the transfer of their functions to the London boroughs or metropolitan districts, joint boards and other bodies, it is likely that the staffs of the GLC and metropolitan county councils will be depleted and put under great pressure. It will be important, therefore, that requests for information are properly controlled to avoid multiple approaches from different departments and authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle spoke of the morale of staff in the present situation. It is low because there is so much uncertainty about their future, about their pension rights and about the general effect of this legislation on them. Other hon. Members will have received the same volume of letters from employees and ratepayers in the areas of the counties asking us to fight the abolition. The Secretary of State's stereotyped reply to such letters has proved totally unsatisfactory to all concerned.
The proposal is that the risk of duplicating administrative chaos should be minimised by requiring all requests for information to be channelled through the officers of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. The Local Government Act 1972—the principal Act—requires certain officers to be designated as proper officers for particular functions. The amendments take advantage of the provisions to identify the proper officers as the appropriate people to whom requests for information related to their functions should be channeled. The duty in clause 7 is not limited to the provision of information to give effect to the abolition, but goes further in requiring the giving of information to help formulate proposals for the abolition.
There are proposals to lay the duty to provide information not only on the councils but on each and every one of their officers.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My experience is that no one writes to anyone other than a chief officer. I have been a little confused during the past two or three minutes, because I have never known either the public or the


Secretary of State to write to a district council or any county council, only to the chief officer of the department. Where is the problem?

Mr. Tony Banks: Nonsense.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: It is not nonsense. It happens to be true.

Mr. O'Brien: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman has no knowledge of local government.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am still in it.

Mr. O'Brien: That does not mean that the hon. Gentleman has any knowledge of local government. His comments lead me to believe that he has a limited knowledge of local government, even though he is still a serving member.

Mr. Freud: Does my hon. Friend not accept that a competent Member of Parliament would go to the right department of local government rather than take the easy way out and write to the chief executive?

Mr. O'Brien: I accept my hon. Friend's point. The amendment says that there should be appropriate officers, but the Bill does not say that. That matter should be corrected. That is why I chose to discuss amendment No. 103, which I believe is reasonable and could be accepted without demur.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I said "chief officer", not the chief executive. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) missed my point.

Mr. O'Brien: The records will show that I was under the impression that you had referred to the chief executive.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Wells): Order. I have not said anything.

Mr. O'Brien: I take that back. Obviously, Mr. Wells, you have not said anything. I was referring to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). We welcome you, Mr. Wells, to the Chair, and I am sure that you will keep us in order, as you have done on other occasions.
Clause 7 makes sweeping provisions in relation to staff and completely ignores any practical considerations about who will have information. The clause rides roughshod over the duty that every employee has to his employer. The measure overlooks the fact that in law information is the property of the employer and it is not for the employee to give that information.
As was pointed out on Second Reading, the staff of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils are required to co-operate in the possible extinction of their jobs. We are asking staff of the counties to give information with a view to abolishing their jobs. Anyone who believes that the officers will act readily to abolish their jobs is living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
The Government have claimed that they need these powers urgently because of the short time available in which to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. The Government are setting the timetable, and they have the power to change it. If the Government feel that there will be some problems—I am sure that the Opposition have proved that there will be problems—it is now time to change that timetable. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will explain why the measures

should come into effect in 1984–85. Why is the timetable so tight? Why is it so urgent to pass on the information? The Government should not use the limited time they have made available as an excuse for demanding the provisions contained in clause 7 before the substantive measures have been debated and taken on board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) referred to the survey carried out in west Yorkshire, to which a great deal of importance should be attached. I have referred to the number of letters that I received and which I am sure other hon. Members received also. On 7 April 1984, a survey was carried out in west Yorkshire by the students of the Leeds polytechnic. The survey stated:
During the last General Election each of the major parties advocated a reform of local government. Which of the following would you favour?

(a) an increase in the powers of local government or
(b) things as they are or
(c) an increase in the powers of central government."


Only 11 per cent. of the sample wanted the power; of central Government to be strengthened. I am a west Yorkshire representative, and the message from west Yorkshire is that 55 per cent. of the people interviewed wanted an increase in local government powers.

Mr. Fatchett: One of the arguments that we have heard many times from Ministers is that they have a mandate to abolish the metropolitan county councils. They do not, of course, have a mandate to abolish the 1985 elections.
My hon. Friend will have noticed that only 7·6 per cent. of the electorate, when asked on the same public opinion survey to write down the important issues, identified local government as an important issue. Does that show a lack of support by the people of west Yorkshire for these reforms or show that they never believed the Prime Minister when she said that she would abolish rates?

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Members representing west Yorkshire constituencies are aware of the feelings of the electorate. At no time did the abolition of the county councils play a major part in the results of the last general election. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will take that point on board, because the people of west Yorkshire believe that that is an important factor. The amendments are necessary to correct this part of the legislation, and I hope that the Secretary of State will take my points on board.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that, although only a few other Conservative Members are listening, the Under-Secretary will take on board the fact that there are severe defects in the clause, at all levels.
I refer in particular to amendments Nos. 64 and 65, tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, to leave out the simple words "and its officers". If carried, the Secretary of State, the London borough councils, the common council of the City of London, or the metropolitan district councils could request information only from the Greater London council and metropolitan county councils, not from their officers. Therefore, the request goes through the constitutional channels, from one authority of the land, the Secretary of State, who is a member of the Government, or from one elected body, a borough or district council, to another elected body.
If the amendment is not passed, we would have a clause saying that the Secretary of State, any of his employees or those who work in his office should be able to demand


information from the Greater London council and its officers. I should like to know whether each request will be specific and from the Secretary of State himself, or whether the authority will be delegated. If so, why is that not provided for in the clause?
Secondly, how many officers are there in the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils? Unless we know, we cannot properly debate the matter and come to a conclusion. How does the Secretary of State define "officers"? Where is the definition? Is it in existing or secondary legislation? Alternatively, will the definition be plucked like a rabbit out of a hat when the Under-Secretary replies? I want the figures. I should like to know how many officers we are talking about. They need to know today, and not later.
The other constitutional point relates to the amazing lack of precedent for the provision. The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) referred to this matter. There has been one substantial difference from the time when local government was last reformed in that we had a public debate with the Royal Commission and a general airing of the issues then. Instead of the Government acting stealthily and furtively, we had a public national debate, when good arguments had the chance of winning the day. When one does not allow the arguments to be aired, people are less likely to be persuaded of their validity.
I should like to know what the difference is now that makes it necessary to have this provision at all. Either the hon. Member for Surbiton is correct and one needs a provision such as this, with compulsion and the powers to enforce if those requested do not come up with the information, or one does what one did last time, when the authorities were allowed to communicate with each other. If they did not come up with the information, one had to live with that, and it was accumulated in the following year. When local government was reformed in London under the Local Government Act 1963 and the Local Government Act 1972, there was no parallel provision. Why do we need it now, when we did not have it before?
The second major and substantial objection is on the grounds of practicality. Our amendments would at least have the merit, if requests were made to the authorities as opposed to their officers, of making sure that requests for information were rationalised. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary the following questions.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: This man should have a suit on.

Mr. Hughes: I almost did not hear that comment.
Why can requests for information be made in this amazingly unco-ordinated way, while the Secretary of State, who argues that the provision is in the interests of efficiency, says that this is the best way of doing it? What way is there of making sure that officers' time is not duplicated by answering the same questions from all the district or borough councils and the Secretary of State at different times, and possibly, in different ways? What is the guidance to officers on the way in which they should answer the questions? Do they have to give every possible piece of information relating to the question, or only the bare essentials? There is no guidance or detailed provision on what they are required to do.
Thirdly, how will the replies be standardised so that the information is provided in the way required and is

intelligible to all concerned? Requests will be flooding on to officers' desks day after day, hour after hour, week after week, and month after month. How on earth will they do the rest of their job — the job that they were doing yesterday, are doing today and will do tomorrow? They have a practical job that they are already employed to do. and the Secretary of State is charging them with enormous additional tasks and functions. He, the great reliever of bureaucracy, the person meant to be taking government of our backs, is adding to the burden of those employed local authorities up and down the land.
A fundamental constitutional objection is that if one deals with officers, one is showing a basic disrespect for the constitution, to which people have referred regularly, under which one deals with the authorities elected for the purpose, not those employed by those authorities. If one trespasses beyond that constitutional threshold, what happens if the officers say no? Will they be taken to court? Will my borough treasurer be taken to court if he says no, or will the council be taken to court? The council will not have had the chance to make a decision whether to refuse the document. Certain officers might have different views. There might be no clear guidelines in the local authority. The information might be sought by next week, when the full council does not meet for two months or six weeks. What is the constitutional position of the officer when asked for the information? Officers are normally called on to serve not two masters, but one—their authority. That has been the tradition, and it should be continued.
Do the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State not realise that we are talking about 1985–86? That is the year in which the councils will give the officers an enormous amount of work to do, to tidy up various matters. Local borough councils and district councils will be coming to their last year of office, and preparing their goods in the window so that they look appealing when they come before the electorate. The officers will also be involved in planning in the transitional period, when the GLC and the metropolitan counties will be run by new members, people who have not run those authorities before. Those people will say, "What on earth am I meant to do? I have no experience." I think that I am right in saying that, of the present 92 members of the GLC, only eight will be eligible for membership in 1985–86. I presume that the same will be true in the metropolitan counties. Therefore, the officers will have a particularly onerous year, trying to instruct members who are new to the job. That is the second task with which they will be charged.
Thirdly, there is a proposal to reduce the number of members, so that there will be changes in committee structure. The officers will work in a different administrative context. Fourthly, they will have their own future to think about. The director general of the GLC or the chief executive of west Yorkshire might want another job when the councils are abolished. If they do, will they not spend some time looking for another job? Is that not reasonable and proper? Will the Government guarantee that they can spend 24 or 18 hours a day answering the innumerable requests from the Secretary of State who, it would appear, will for ever want more information? It is a waste of officers' time. They will already be busy enough.
The provision is without precedent and is unnecessary. It is unnecessary for this fundamental reason. The Secretary of State wants the information. He has already had hundreds of documents, but refuses to release them.


He wants to put into the bowels of Marsham street—for the gentleman and ladies who advise him and their colleagues to look at—hundreds of documents, facts and figures, without the public having the chance to know what is going on. At least, if one asks a council formally for information, it is likely that there will be a public meeting and it will be discussed. Something might appear in the minutes and in the records. However, letters between the Secretary of State and his officials are hardly likely to be published in documents.
We want to know what our elected representatives are doing. We believe in free information. We resent bureaucratic secrecy and we oppose these measures, unless the Under-Secretary will give an undertaking that any document will be available to the public, because if it is not it is secrecy, and if it is secrecy, we do not like it.
It is not as if there is not a lot of information anyway. There are already lots of documents submitted to the Secretary of State that are full of facts and figures, but are not relevant enough to be published by him. Perhaps their relevance is so apparent to the public that if they were published the argument might have to be conceded. There is much other information as well. I shall take the time of the Committee to make it clear how much information is available already. What else do the Government want? We need to know. It is no good coming here saying that the GLC, the MCCs and their officers have to furnish the state with all such information on official request. There is no limit, such as that all such information should be relevant. Therefore, we have to ask whether the Government do not already have enough such information. They already have a massive amount.
In 1979, the local authority associations drew up a list of financial returns of various sorts, made by local authorities to various central Government Departments. I could and I am half-minded to, read it all out. There are 16 pages of it, and I shall read out a few of those pages to give the Committee an idea of what information is available. It says:
Govt Dept Agency: DOE; Form reference: VE50; title &amp; brief description: motor tax — agency reimbursement; frequency: annual; why required; reimbursement claim".
The second is:
DOE; form reference: J.P. Grant"—
that is not the name of a person, it is supposed to be a document—
Brief Description; Administration of Justice Grant; Frequency: Annual; Why required: Grant Claim".
The third is:
Manpower Services Commission; Form Reference: WEP; Title &amp; Brief Description: Work Experience; Frequency: Quarterly; Why Required: Grant Claim".
The fourth is:
DOE Community Land—Sanction Estimates; Frequency: Annual".
The fifth is:
DOE; Community Land—Actual Transactions".
The sixth is:
DOE. Form Reference 12523; Return of rates, interest payments and receipts; Quarterly".
The seventh is:
DOE Form Reference: 12507 Capital Payments Return and Annexe for Housing; Quarterly".
The eighth is:
DOE. Statement of LDS Payments"—
no doubt the Under-Secretary will tell us what LDS stands for—
Annual; Determination of Allocation based on actuals.

Mr. Freud: Could my hon. Friend tell us when he gets to the bottom of page 1 so that we can pace ourselves?

Mr. Hughes: Always mindful of the needs of others, I was intending to turn over very loudly so that hon. Members could see when I came to the bottom of page 1. We come to the ninth—

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Come on, Simon.

Mr. Hughes: This is very relevant.
It says:
DOE. Statutory Financial Statement for Audit Fee: Annual".
The tenth starts "CSO", and I would like to know what CSO is.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way if the Under-Secretary should want to intervene now to tell us what these crucial documents mean, because I am not certain that the Secretary of State understands them?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) may think that he is being very clever with his rather schoolboyish speech. CSO stands for the Central Statistical Office, and that is to do with the collection of Government statistics. All the other information that the hon. Gentleman has read out is to do with grants. Perhaps we could reimburse local government by doing it all on the telephone, but his speech is rather childish.

Mr. Hughes: I want to know what else the Secretary of State and his Ministers need. Not only are there 16 pages worth provided regularly, but there is more. Unless I get an adequate answer, at a later stage I shall return to this document, and the Committee can share with me the delights of the other pages. There are other things already available. There are other regular statistical returns made by local authorities about the performance of their functions, for example about their manpower.

Mr. Boyes: Come back.

Mr. Hughes: I have to observe, because otherwise it would not be apparent from Hansard, that the Secretary of State is creeping away to his tents. I think that is a biblical reference, but do not ask me for the quote.
The joint manpower watch is published quarterly, and that deals with figures. Housing returns are published quarterly. Planning information is published quarterly. That even deals with planning applications that are the subject of decisions not only by the GLC and the MCCs but by the local authorities.
There are specific powers in many Acts of Parliament by which information is already obtained, and some have already been referred to, such as the Housing Act, to which the hon. Members for Bootle (Mr. Roberts I and for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and others have referred. Section 10 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 empowers the Secretary of State to request statistics from local authorities about their holding of land. There is a vast amount—hon. Members will know how vast it is—of information about local authority activity published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. These returns come annually, they are in book form, they are full of statistics and include actual figures, estimates, and among other things include waste management, housing, planning and development, police, fire services and highway transportation.
In addition, under sections 2 and 3 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, local authorities are required to publish information about the exercise of their functions, in accordance with codes of practice, laid down by the Secretary of State, that may be given the power of regulations. What is more — this shows the shallowness and the duplicity of the argument used by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe)—there are documents produced by the authorities themselves that come up with facts and figures. For example, there is an annual abstract of Greater London statistics, there is an annual abstract of statistics of the West Midlands county council. There is a Greater Manchester annual report of tax figures and finance and the south Yorkshire statistics, the GLC annual report, road safety section and the GLC study series and statistical series.
That information is already in the hands of our bureaucrats and the Department of the Environment. They probably do quite a good job with it—but, without good reason, we do not want them to have more. We certainly do not want the Government to have more information and more power without the rest of us knowing what is going on. We shall not allow the Secretary of State to get away with an answer that does not deal with the specifics. Unless we have the specifics, we shall continue to annoy the Government until they are eventually forced to come up with all the information. They will then be disproved in their assertion that this futile and badly presented exercise will cost less. Because of the way in which they are doing it, they are determined to make it cost more. For that reason, as well as all the constitutional, practical and important civil libertarian issues, we shall oppose the measure.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: While accepting that the mass of information currently goes from first and second-tier authorities to the Secretary of State, is not what the hon. Gentleman has just said proof positive that one tier should be abolished?

9 pm

Mr. Hughes: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman does not yet understand what we are doing. There is a transfer of function from one level of authority to other levels. Direct boards are not the same level as the local boroughs and districts. The Government intend to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties, although six years ago they argued the opposite case. They have changed their minds because of the different political colour of the GLC. They are abolishing one tier not in the shire counties, but selectively in London and the metropolitan counties.

Mr. Peter Lilley: It was in the manifesto.

Mr. Hughes: The abolition of elections was not in the manifesto, as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister well knows. Had it been in the manifesto, the Government might not have had so many people disproportionately elected.
If the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) believes that, having taken information and power away from elected people and put it into the hands of bureaucrats and the central state is a Conservative

measure, we have all learnt from the wrong history books. We have always understood that the Conservative party proclaimed the unshackling from the burdens of the state. The Minister called his book "The Binding of Leviathan", and said how we must reduce state power. He has heard the argument; he knows the truth.
We want proper answers to a series of fundamental questions. It is ludicrous for the Government to imagine that they can steamroller the Bill through the House without answering the questions, and get away with it.

Mr. Boyes: During Second Reading and in Committee we established a number of points. The metropolitan county councils and the GLC are wholly opposed to abolition, especially without any inquiry. A number of leading figures on the Conservative Benches, including a former Prime Minister and former Cabinet Ministers, are also against the Bill. It is quite clear that all Opposition Members are unequivocally opposed to every word in the Bill.
The people who work within the metropolitan county councils have made their position clear. We should not expect any worker to be in favour of any clause that says of the councils:
its officers shall furnish the Secretary of State…with all such information…as the Secretary of State…may request.
The unwritten words in the Bill, which should have been included to complete that sentence, should be "with or without the permission of the local authority." Those are the critical words. The clause is not only an outrage and a disgrace, it is undemocratic.
The Bill is a direct attack on trade union rights. During the past 10 or 11 weeks much has been said about ballots—yet NALGO, the main union for officers of councils, conducted a ballot of its members on their attitude to the abolition of the county councils. The members were also asked whether they should co-operate with the Government in achieving their demands and desires. Overwhelmingly, the result of the ballot was that the members should not co-operate with the Government.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I have been following my hon. Friend's speech with care. The clause refers to the officers of the council, but it is not specific about who can be termed as officer and whether or not every employee of the council from the chief officer to the lowest-paid manual workers will be directly affected by the clause and will be under the direct control of the Secretary of State.
My hon. Friend has much experience of local government. He was an assistant director of social services. I hope that he can advise us about this point, which is causing a great deal of concern to members of my union, the National Union of Public Employees, and no doubt other unions who have members in local government.

Mr. Boyes: I shall refer shortly to my own position as a senior officer in local government. I shall say how I regarded my position at that time and what difficulties the clause would have created for me.
The Government are creating anti-trade union legislation in an ad hoc way. If the Government wish to deprive union members of certain specific trade union rights in local government or some other work place—it may be the miners next—they can bring in a Bill on a matter apparently unrelated to trade unions and slip in a


key clause that directly attacks those members and their rights. They have done it before. Other groups of workers must be vigilant about the possibility that it will happen to them.
It is arrogant of the Government to think that they can get away with it so easily. I am not alone in taking this view. I am thinking of the words of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), a former Foreign Secretary, on Second Reading. He said:
The Bill blandly assumes that parliament will agree to whatever new proposals the Government bring forward. perhaps it will, but the presumption is hardly treating the House with the respect to which it is accastomed. That is especially important with a large majority."—[Offcial Report, 11 April 1984; vol. 58, c. 433]
A number of my hon. Friends have appealed to the Government to listen carefully to out arguments, particularly with reference to the difficulties that will be caused to the officers of a council by the clause. I hope that the Government will accept our amendment.
It is highly arrogant of the Government to expect a trade unionist to abolish his own job, but that is what the clause seeks. Those who work in the councils and whose jobs will last for only another 11 months are to be asked to work hand in hand with the Government during that time to abolish their own jobs. That is not only crazy; it is undemocratic and smells of dictatorship.

Mr. Trarey: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there should be a state of anarchy? Does he not accept that local government officers are public servants and that if they are asked by Government or by the interim councils to hand over information, they must do so? Does he follow the line put forward by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) that those officers should adopt a Clay Cross stance and refuse to give the imformation—that they should, in effect, break the law?

Mr. Boyes: The hon Gentleman should not trivialise important functions in that way. Those of us who have worked in local authorities were proud to be public servants and recognised to whom we were answerable. We were not answerable to the steward or landlord of a local pub but had defined political masters.
Trade union were formed with a specific duty to protect their members. Clause 7 tries to deprive trade unions of their right and ability to protect the jobs and working condition of their members. That is unacceptable. Above all, clause 7 gives the Secretary of State power to take action against an individual for whom he is not directly responsible. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) mentioned the legal implications of that. How the Government intend to treat such individuals is envisaged though not explicitly stated in this brief little Bill that means so much but says so little. The infamous memo of MISC 95 which was leaked to The Guardian and which I quote regularly because it says more about the Government's intentions than does the Bill, says:
and to counter obstruction if necessary, is included in the legislative programme for the current session. MISC 95 agrees that we should avoid any statement in the immediate future about our determination to combat obstructive behaviour, since that night itself provoke obstruction. We would need to be ready to act quickly, however, if such behaviour began to occur".
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, the Secretary of State can act only through the courts. It is clear that the mechanisms to deal with an officer who does not comply with clause 7 have already

been laid down. It is disgraceful that the Secretary of State should take an individual, outside his local authority and outside his trade union, to court for not providing information that the Secretary of State demands of him.
I should like to lean on my own experience for a moment. Before 1979, when I became a Member of the European Parliament, I was an assistant director of social services. I therefore had access to and generated confidential information. Was that information my property to do with as I wished? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I suggest to the Minister that it would be extremely dangerous to suggest that those who work in such a department can do what they will with confidential information on families that they obtain in their daily work. Therefore, if the answer to my earlier question is no, to whom was I answerable and responsible? In a Court of Appeal decision involving the city of Birmingham, Lord Donaldson said:
As I have already said, all relevant information acquired by a local authority"s social Worker in the course of their duties, whether or not it be confidential, is acquired on behalf of the local authority, and becomes the local authority's information". It is therefore clear that the information belongs to the local authority and not to any of its officers. It is for the local authority alone to decide to whom it is to be made available. The statement by Lord Donaldson did not say that it was for the Secretary of State, the Speaker of the House of Commons, hon. Members or anyone else to decide. It said that the information was the property of the local authority. That affords vital protection for the officer as well as for those whom he is trying to help, and—

Mrs. Edwina Currie: rose—

Mr. Boyes: I always give way, but I do not usually do so until I have at least come to a comma, colon or full stop.

Mrs. Currie: I am not in any position to know when the hon. Gentleman is about to come to a comma. It looked as though he was going to go on for ever. As the chariman of the social services committee involved in that case, I remind the hon. Gentleman that it revolved round an officer of the council withholding information. the whole problem. The officer was refusing to give information, and the case had to go to court to prove that the officer had to give it. The clause, therefore, entirety supports the case that the hon Gentleman is trying; to make.

Mr. Boyes: The hon. Lady is wrong. Load Donaldson clarified the position about whose property was the information acquired by an officer. It does not matter whether the officer was withholding it, or what he was doing. Land Donaldson has made it clear that such information was the property of the local authority. I remind the hon. Lady that almost every other hon. Member has been in the Chamber since 4.30 pm. I believe that she has been here for about five minutes, and that shows how much interest she has in the debate.
When I was an officer I understood not only form court rulings but as a matter of integrity that I could not act without the direct and express permission of locally elected representatives. Many hon. Members have served on local authorities and I know what they would say if they read in the press about information that I had given to the media before I, as a senior officer, had given at to the council. They would say, "We are the elected


representatives, and we want the information first. Don't you do that again." They would thus establish quite clearly whose information it was.
In that respect, the officer is placed in a catch-22 situation. If he disobeys his local authority, he is disobeying those who pay his wages. They have the power to dismiss him for acting unprofessionally, or whatever. Thus, he is either being asked to disobey elected local authority representatives and so risk the sack, or to disobey the Secretary of State and end up in court with a massive and costly legal action being brought against him.
I believe that the Minister is more intelligent and sensible than that and must realise the onerous and silly position that he has created for an officer of the council. I would find such a situation impossible, but it is not me, but thousands of officers throughout the country who are being put in that position. I do not refer only to those working in the authorities that are to abolished. Through the Bill, the Minister is redefining the power to demand information of any officer of any local authority. He is now saying that a couple of clauses in a Bill will determine that an officer has to give the Secretary of State for the Environment—although in other cases it could be the Secretary of State for Social Services, or the Secretary of State for Education and Science—access to information.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to officers giving information. When I was a local authority officer I gave masses of information to central Government. Sometimes we used to think that it was too much. The hon. Gentleman has threatened to read out the tables later if necessary—perhaps at about 6 am. Those tables will show why we sometimes felt that central Government demanded so much information from us that we could not always get on with the job that we were paid to do. Social service departments suffered especially as all units were continuously feeding central Government with information.
When the Government are already getting all that information, there must be something devious going on if they now want even more information. The information that they want must relate only to the abolition of local authorities, as is their policy and intention.
Therefore, I have no alternative theoretically, as a trade unionist or as a former local authority officer and councillor but wholeheartedly to oppose the Government's proposals. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Harry Cohen: This is the coercion clause. In my view, it should be scrapped, but at the very least it must be amended. The Government need the clause because they have failed to carry out the proper inquiries and analysis before introducing the Bill. Because they have not done their homework, they are less informed than they should be.
The clause places a duty on the authorities which are to be abolished and on their staff to furnish information to the Secretary of State and to the transferee authorities—the London boroughs, the metropolitan districts, the City of London and all the other quangos. The Government are in no position to talk about lack of co-operation by local authority officers. The whole run-up period to the Bill has been a chapter of lack of co-operation by the Government in providing information about the Bill to those seeking it. The Government refused to co-operate with the financial

study undertaken by Coopers and Lybrand. They backed out of that when the first stage was completed and they saw that the study was going against them. They also refused to give information to Members of Parliament about the consultation process, so they are in no position to criticise local authority officers and others for not providing information.
The clause will cause duplication because the Government are forcing both local authorities and staff to provide the information. The clause as it stands amounts to coercion of staff and will undermine the relationship between employee and employer. In effect, the employee will have two employers—the local authority for which he works, plus the Secretary of State and the transferee authority. That is an invidious position for any officer to be in.

Mr. Fatchett: Is my hon. Friend sure that the unfortunate officer will have only two employers? Surely there will be a multitude of employers, not just the council by which the officer is now employed and the Secretary of State but the metropolitan district councils or London boroughs as well as the other joint bodies that the Government have so far refused to define. Are not all those bodies potential employers?

Mr. Cohen: Yes, I confirm that. As we heard earlier, the courts will also be making demands on officers to furnish information. All this puts the employee in a particularly invidious position.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: When we last debated the matter, the Under-Secretary showed a worrying lack of understanding about the authority that the staff commission would have. Will my hon. Friend give some comfort to local authority employees who feel frightened that they may have two employers telling them what to do, a staff commission that is open to direction from the Secretary of State and no clear employer whom they can take to an appellate body such as an industrial tribunal? Is it not incumbent on the Minister to set the minds of those employees at rest tonight, and inform them who their employer will be and whom they can take action against in the event of a disagreement?

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes some good points. He raised them on Thursday 10 May when we debated the clause relating to the staff commission. I shall return to those points later.
At times the format or contents of the information required may be ambiguous or controversial, and the employee and employer may disagree about how they should be presented.
In those circumstances the employee will be forced to act against the wishes of his boss and provide that disputed information. That could have serious consequences; indeed, it could destroy their working relationship.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend speaks with great authority as a former local councillor. Will he tell the House what his attitude would be as a serving local councillor if one of his officials were intent on giving information to the Department of the Environment or another body, which he, as an elected member and therefore the officer's employer, did not wish him to provide?

Mr. Cohen: I should be worried. The information is the property of the employer. I should be worried if a chief officer handed over information which belonged to me as his employer, and one of several councillors.

Mr. Fatchett: Does my hon. Friend recognise the potential danger of creating a legal precedent? An individual could be sacked by a local authority for providing information and disobeying a local authority's orders, and, because of this legislation, be found by an industrial tribunal to have been unfairly dismissed. In other words, the legislation could create a precedent whereby an employer who sacked an employee for disobeying orders could go before an industrial tribunal and find that the dismissal had been unfair. If that precedent were set, could it be extended to other circumstances in which employers wished to take similar action?

Mr. Cohen: Such a precedent would be a recipe for chaos.
The information does not belong to the employee, but to the employer who, in this instance, is the local authority. What would the Secretary of State and the few Conservative Members who are present think if the provisions of clause 7 applied to private business, and if the employees of a small private firm were forced to hand over information to the Secretary of State? They would be upset if employees had the legal duty to do that behind the backs of their bosses. There would be an uproar. The Under-Secretary would move quickly to scrap the clause.
What would happen if the clause applied to the Civil Service? Miss Sarah Tisdall handed over information behind her employer's back and she got six months. That is what the Government are encouraging local authority employees to do. The Government are putting then in an invidious position.
9.30 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) made it clear that NALGO opposes the clause. It is an important local government union. I have a letter that the union has written to Members of Parliament. It believes that the obligation to provide information should be placed solely upon the local authority and not upon the employees. If it is the responsibility of the local authority to give information to the Secretary of State, it has the power to ensure that its employees carry out its instructions. That is the sensible way to deal with the matter.
It is at present lawful to take industrial action to protect jobs and working conditions, but it becomes illegal under the clause. There are 9,000 jobs threatened. Trade union rights are further restricted by the clause, which should be rejected on those grounds.
The Minister should address his mind to the question of which employer—if there is an industrial dispute and the trade unions come out on strike—the trade unions will be able to picket under this Bill and under trade union legislation. Under trade union legislation, they are supposed to be able to picket their employers but only their employers. If the Bill is passed, it will be pointless to picket the GLC or the metropolitan county councils because they will be powerless. Should the unions picket the staff commission that the Secretary of State will set up? He said that the staff commission was an adviser, although later he said that it would protect the interests of

employees. Trade unions will lose their rights in a legitimate trade dispute. The Bill is nonsense and a disgusting infringement of trade union rights could result.
Who will be doing the sacking of staff if the Bill goes through? When we discussed the staff commission the Minister said:
we do seek savings of manpower by the change. However the Staff Commission is not the instrument through that objective can be met.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said:
will its priority"—
the staff commission's—
be the protection of the existing levels of payment and conditions of service?
The Minister said:
No, I cannot guarantee that.
Later the Minister was asked by my hon. Friend:
Who will be the employers?
The Minister replied:
The employers will be the employers.
There is the cream of the British public education system. He continued:
The staff commission will not be an employer but an adviser and persuader"—
"persuader" is the right word—
which will see that the reasonable interests of the staff are safeguarded.
My hon. Friend then asked if the employment would be continuous if the staff went from the GLC or the metropolitan counties to the quango. The Minister replied:
That is exactly the type of issue on which the commission will advise us".—[Official Report, 10 May 1984; Vol. 59, c. 1164, 1166.]
The Minister was saying apparently that the staff would not have continuous employment. He did not give that undertaking. In effect it is the commission which will be doing the sacking; if people are not taken on by the new authority and have not been sacked by the old authority, it is the staff commission that will throw them out of their jobs. The Minister should come clean on that point.
Trade unionists will resist all aspects of the Bill. They will not take lying down the loss of 9,000 jobs. They will fight against that and take industrial action to stop it. They will not give information to put themselves out of jobs, which is effectively what the clause will do. In job terms the clause is about the staff digging their own graves. They will not do that without a fight. They will take justifiable industrial action which the trade union legislation will make political. The industrial action and the chaos that result will be the Government's fault.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: It is surprising that with you in the Chair, Mr. Wells, we are discussing the responsibilities of officers in connection with the changes that are to take place in local authorities. We shall not be discussing horticulture or such things. I wish to draw an analogy between changes in the National Health Service and the way in which this disastrous clause in this dog's dinner of a Bill is destroying long-term relationships that have been built up between officials and elected representatives over decades.
I have no interest to declare although I am a member of the National Union of Public Employees. The Government have made a complete mess of the clause. My hon. Friends and I are trying to dig them out of the mess by putting forward amendments to prevent confrontation.


It always amazes me that the Government do not take advantage of amendments facilitate what they obviously want to do.
When I first became a Member of Parliament I had a good colleague on the Front Bench called Aneurin Bevan. When I saw the Bill, and in particular this clause and the series of amendments, one of his speeches came to my mind. In the course of that speech he said that he did not need to look at the crystal ball when he could read the book.
This gerrymandering Bill will probably go into the "Guinness Book of Records" as the instrument that produced the greatest gerrymander of the century. As you know, Mr. Wells, I have served on almost every major standing committee for the past 25 years and it was inevitable that I should be a member of the committee that considered the Bill that introduced the Greater London council. That measure altered completely the structure of London Government.
The right hon. Member for leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who is currently the Secretary of State for Education and Science, is a great reformer. He has given us, for example, the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973 and the Local Government Act 1972. I am reminded of catullus, who was a Roman consul about 2,000 years ago. He found that when relationships began to settle down with a new organizations someone came along and reorganized it, and that one could never be quite sure in which direction relationships were moving. We are still in that position.
Relationships with the GLC having settled down after about 20 years, change is now proposed. We found a way of ensuring that elected local government representatives could live successfully with those who had been appointed to serve as local government officers. The relationship between Members of this place and the Clerks of the House has developed over many years and it ensures that progress can be made.
This series of amendments is an attempt to change the clause so as to ensure that existing relationships can be better preserved and so that informations coming from council officials can be safeguarded. It is an attempt to ensure that Big Brother does not make the decisions from Whitehall.
The London Government Act 1963 was clearly designed to get rid of the London county council, which had been a Labour strongbold for decades. That attempt was successful. The LCC was very much associated with one of my late colleagues, Herbert Morrison. Conservative-controlled areas such as Bromley and Romford, and the famous constituency which is now held by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Wanstead and Woodford, which was once held briefly by Sir Winston Churchill, were brought within the area of London government to ensure that there would not be Labour-controlled GLC. In Brent there were four Labour constituencies and a relationship with local government officers was naturally built up over the years. In Willesden we had two Labour-controlled constituencies and in wembley there were two Conservative-controlled constituecies. When the boundaries were redrawn—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I find it difficult to understand how his speech about boundaries has anything to do with the amendments.

Mr. Pavitt: I was waiting for you to cal me to order, Mr. Wells, on that issue. I realized that I was straying slightly from the amendments. I was referring to the gerrymandering that went on—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman that that line of argument is unacceptable, and it is still unacceptable.

Mr. Pavitt: The relationship between the officers of Labour-controlled Willesden and Conservative-controlled Wembley suffered a good deal of stress, from which it took some time to recover. The clause creates a similar problem, with the exception that nobody will be sure to whom the information is relevant. It will come back not to an elected representative assembley, but to an appointed assembly of which Government may have control, but of which Parliament will have little control.
9.45 pm
Referring to the points that have been made by my hon. Friends in the debate, I draw to the attention of the Committe the amount of information on racial problems that is give to the new quango in my constituency by officers. Ethnic minorities make up 46 per cent. of my constituency. In my area, a racial integration year was launched at the town hall last week. If the clause goes through unamended, what kind of relationship will exist to assist our endeavours to integrate the ethnic minorities who have come to my constitiuency, which is one of the London boroughs within the GLC area? What kind of relationships will exist to enable our directives, in order to curtail public expenditure, cut the amount of expenditure devoted to the integration of ethnic minorities? The officers of the council will be required by central Government to provide such information. As has been mentioned by my hon. Friends, this could affect many departments in local government, including social services, part III homes, and the way in which we help the disabled. When I served on a standing committee which was considering a previous Bill, one of the greatest problems that arose concerned care for the disabled, the blind and the deaf, where information was provided on co-ordination is not possible under the new clause, those who are at most risk in society will have fever services available to them exist under the present system.
I therefore commend all the amendments, in particular amendment No. 86, to the Committee. I hope that the Government, even if they are unable to accept some of the excellent suggestions that have been made by my hon. Friends, may at least be able to remove some of the worst effects of the clause as it stands when the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Tony Banks: As I said in the debate on an earlier group of amendments, the clause reveals the double standards of the Government, and their total bankruptcy in having put these proposals before the Committee. The Government are thrashing around trying to obtain information that they should have elicited long before they brought the legislation to the Committee. The double


standards come to mind when one realises that the clause requires officers of elected local authorities to provide information to Government, yet the Government have steadfastedly refused to provide information to the Committee.
Cmnd. 9063, "Streamlining the Cities", attracted some 5,000 responses. The Government intended to keep those responses to themselves, because the overwhelming majority were opposed to what they were suggesting. After much pressure from Opposition Members, they eventually placed some of those representations—about 14 per cent. of the 5,000 — in the Library. They are saying in this squalid little Bill that officers of local authorities shall be compelled by law to provide information, when on that occasion the Government were not prepared to provide hon. Members with information.
Had the Government moved with less haste in trying to fulfil their manifesto pledge to abolish the GLC and metropolitan county councils and decided to conduct a Royal Commission or high-powered inquiry into the provision of local government services by the GLC and metropolitan county councils, they would have received total co-operation from the officers of the GLC and the councils.

Mr. Corbyn: Can my hon. Friend think of any occasion when there has been what amounts to a constitutional change and the Government of the day have deliberately prevented the public from seeing the volume of opposition—or, as it might have been, support—from people throughout the country? Can such legislation ever have been forced through with such secrecy and with such a disgraceful demand being placed on local government officers?

Mr. Banks: I cannot think offhand of an example, although I am sure that a trawl through the history books would turn up a few at about the time of Magna Carta. Secrecy is what this Government are about. They do not want people to know what they are doing. They are anxious to keep secret their various measures to take away our freedoms. This is Fascism by stealth. That is what the Conservatives are into, directed by the chief darling herself.
Had the Government appointed a Royal Commission, which would not have been inconsistent with their manifesto pledge to abolish the GLC and metropolitan county councils, they would have had all the information they required. But because they are trying in this inept way to abolish a tier of local authority structure, they are having to resort to intimidatory methods to obtain information that they could have got in a leisurely way had they approached the matter sensibly in the first place.

Mr. David Winnick: There might have been certain dangers, from the Government's point of view, in the appointment of a Royal Commission. Had a commission looked into the whole question of county authorities, it might have found it strange that the Government should want to abolish only Labour-controlled county authorities without touching the shire counties. This blatant political bias would have been clear, and a Royal Commission would have reached a different conclusion from that of the Government.

Mr. Banks: I am sure that the Government are not interested in truth and good sense prevailing when it comes

to local government changes. If they believe that there is strength in their case, they should appoint a Royal Commission or hold an inquiry to examine their proposals impartially and objectively. In the same way, if they believe that the electors of London do not like the GLC, they should let the people decide at the ballot box in 1985. The Government know that they have a miserable set of arguments, which have little support, even among Conservatives.
The Under-Secretary of State is smiling somewhat quizzically. He is receiving some support from the Conservative Back Benchers because they are erroneously anticipating a Division at 10 o'clock. I should not like the hon. Gentleman to feel that the numbers now gathering on the Conservative Benches show in any way the strength of support that thinking Conservative Members are supposed to be giving him, because they do not. Speech after speech has come from Conservative Members attacking the proposals.

Mr. Fatchett: Is it not clear from this debate that there is no support from thinking Conservative Members, because the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) was the only Conservative Member to intervene in the debate?

Mr. Banks: I would not offend the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) by calling him a thinking Conservative. Insofar as the description "thinking Conservative" is not a conflict of terminology, I maintain that Conservative Members who have some feeling for local authorities are critical of the Under-Secretary of State and other Ministers. The hon. Gentleman knows that he does not have an argument.
During an earlier debate on this matter, I asked the Secretary of State whether he had read the Herbert report, and I was glad when he replied that he had done so. I asked him also whether he had read the Marshall report, and he had not. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary of State has read the Marshall report. It is a good report, and he is more than welcome to borrow my copy if he wishes to refresh his memory. The Marshall committee was set up by a Conservative GLC administration, and was not an inquiry in which the minority Labour party on the GLC wished to co-operate. The GLC officers gave a great deal of assistance to Marshall during his inquiry. All the evidence that the Under-Secretary of State wants can be found in publications such as the Marshall report.

Mr. Waldegrave: Some of the evidence is given in the comments on the Marshall inquiry, such as that by Mr. Livingstone, who said that it did not go far enough and ought to have recommended doing away with the GLC.

Mr. Banks: I am always glad to give way to the hon. Gentleman, hoping that he will shed a little light on the proceedings. On the last two occasions I gave way to him, he made precisely the same point, so I am forced to give almost the same answer. What Mr. Livingstone said in 1979 was incorrect, and what the present Secretary of State for the Environment said in 1979 was correct. It is now 1984, and Mr. Ken Livingstone is correct in what he has said, and the Secretary of State for the Environment is wrong. They have swapped places, and I should like the Under-Secretary of State to comprehend that fact.

Mr. Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Banks: I shall give way to any hon. Member.

Mr. Tracey: In 1982, Mr. Livingstone, when speaking to a conference of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, said that he was in favour of local government at the borough level. The hon. Gentleman tells us that Mr. Livingstone has changed his mind, but apparently that is not true.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The debate is getting a long way from the amendment.

Mr. Banks: Abundant information is available. Various inquiries, including the Marshall inquiry, give all the information about the structure of local government in London that any self-respecting Minister and any civil servant in Marsham street would need.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State has read another document because it is "mighty meaty, matey". There is a lot of stuff in it. Has the hon. Gentleman read the GLC's response to the Government's White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" because it contains a wealth of information?

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Whether the Under-Secretary of State has read it or not, it is a long way from the amendment.

Mr. Banks: I accept what you say, Mr. Wells. I am merely trying to say that this part of this particularly nasty Bill is not necessary, because all the information that is required is there already, much of it in published form. Therefore, to take draconian powers, which the Minister proposes to do, to coerce officers into providing information is unfair and, in many cases, unnecessary.
Perhaps the Minister would care to wander over to county hall to see the amount of published information that is available. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermonsey (Mr. Hughes) was about to give us all the information that the Department of the Environment required. A welter of information is already available. Frankly, I cannot see what more the Minister wants. This shows that someone in Marsham street has not made the journey on behalf of the Minister to gather the information that is available, which might help the Minister to get out of the problem that he has got himself into.

It being Ten o'clock, THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That, at this day's sitting, the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Major.]

The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 20.

Division No. 312]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bendall, Vivian


Aitken, Jonathan
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)


Alexander, Richard
Berry, Sir Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Best, Keith


Amess, David
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ancram, Michael
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Arnold, Tom
Body, Richard


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Bottomley, Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Batiste, Spencer
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bright, Graham


Bellingham, Henry
Brinton, Tim





Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brooke, Hon Peter
Heddle, John


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Henderson, Barry


Browne, John
Hickmet, Richard


Bruinvels, Peter
Hill, James


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hind, Kenneth


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hirst, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Budgen, Nick
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Bulmer, Esmond
Holt, Richard


Butterfill, John
Hooson, Tom


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hordern, Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howard, Michael


Cash, William
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Chope, Christopher
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Churchill, W. S.
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunter, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Colvin, Michael
Irving, Charles


Coombs, Simon
Jackson, Robert


Cope, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Cranborne, Viscount
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Crouch, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Key, Robert


Dunn, Robert
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Evennett, David
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Knowles, Michael


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lamont, Norman


Fallon, Michael
Latham, Michael


Farr, John
Lawler, Geoffrey


Favell, Anthony
Lawrence, Ivan


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forman, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Forth, Eric
Lightbown, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lilley, Peter


Franks, Cecil
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Freeman, Roger
Lord, Michael


Gale, Roger
Lyell, Nicholas


Galley, Roy
McCrea, Rev William


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mac Kay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Glyn, Dr Alan
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Goodlad, Alastair
Maclean, David John


Gorst, John
Madel, David


Gow, Ian
Maginnis, Ken


Gower, Sir Raymond
Major, John


Greenway, Harry
Malins, Humfrey


Gregory, Conal
Malone, Gerald


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Maples, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Marland, Paul


Grist, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Ground, Patrick
Mates, Michael


Gummer, John Selwyn
Maude, Hon Francis


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hanley, Jeremy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hannam, John
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mellor, David


Harris, David
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Harvey, Robert
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Moate, Roger


Hawksley, Warren
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hayes, J.
Moore, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Hayward, Robert
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)






Moynihan, Hon C.
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Murphy, Christopher
Speller, Tony


Neale, Gerrard
Spencer, Derek


Needham, Richard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Nelson, Anthony
Squire, Robin


Neubert, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Newton, Tony
Stanley, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Stern, Michael


Normanton, Tom
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Onslow, Cranley
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Oppenheim, Philip
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Osborn, Sir John
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Ottaway, Richard
Stokes, John


Page, John (Harrow W)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Sumberg, David


Parris, Matthew
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pattie, Geoffrey
Terlezki, Stefan


Pawsey, James
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pollock, Alexander
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Porter, Barry
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thornton, Malcolm


Powley, John
Thurnham, Peter


Price, Sir David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Tracey, Richard


Raffan, Keith
Trippier, David


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Renton, Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rhodes James, Robert
Viggers, Peter


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rifkind, Malcolm
Walden, George


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Waller, Gary


Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Ward, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Warren, Kenneth


Rost, Peter
Watson, John


Rowe, Andrew
Watts, John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Ryder, Richard
Wheeler, John


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Whitfield, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Whitney, Raymond


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wilkinson, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Woodcock, Michael


Shersby, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Silvester, Fred
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sims, Roger
Younger, Rt Hon George


Skeet, T. H. H.



Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. Ian Lang and


Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)
Mr. Archie Hamilton.




NOES


Alton, David
Kirkwood, Archibald


Ashdown, Paddy
Loyden, Edward


Beith, A. J.
Mikardo, Ian


Bruce, Malcolm
Penhaligon, David


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Skinner, Dennis


Cartwright, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Clay, Robert
Wainwright, R.


Cohen, Harry
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Corbyn, Jeremy



Freud, Clement
Tellers for the Noes:


Howells, Geraint
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Simon Hughes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.

Orders of the Day — Business of the House

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to my announcement earlier today, the business for tomorrow has now been re-arranged as follows:
Debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House on British Leyland.
At seven o'clock, opposed private business — the Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill
Motion on EC documents on fisheries.
Second Reading of the Mental Health (Scotland) [Lords], Bill which is a consolidation measure.
Discussions are taking place through the usual channels with a view to finding an alternative date for the 14th allotted Opposition day.

Orders of the Day — Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made:—

Mr. Tony Banks: The clause requires local government officers to provide information, under pain of we know not what. No doubt the Minister will tell us later on. I have here the Secretary of State's press notice, issued by the Department of the Environment. I am surprised to see that the Department of the Environment is issuing party political tracts these days. Apparently it is all right for the Government to do that, although nobody else must do it. If this press release had originated in County hall, I suspect that it would not have been cleared by our officers. They would have said that it was an abuse of ratepayers' money. In fact the press release is an abuse of taxpayers' money and, as we are told, there are more taxpayers than ratepayers.
The press release contains a report of a speech made by the Secretary of State at the Penta hotel at Heathrow. He said:
to make detailed estimates the districts and boroughs need information about how the upper tier run services at present—and such information is not available because the upper tier authorities are withholding it. However, this will change when the paving bill becomes law because the 7 authorities facing abolition will then be obliged to provide information.
The Secretary of State must have underlined the word "obliged" in case his words should be thought to lack conviction. He wanted to leave no doubt that he intends to take powers to oblige local authorities and local authority officers to provide information. In doing so, he is clearly stepping outside the normal relationship that should exist between Whitehall and local authority officers. Of course, much of this Bill and the forthcoming legislation steps far beyond the normal bounds of respectability in the treatment of local authorities.
What the Secretary of State said in that press statement is not altogether true. A mass of information is already available and made available by the GLC to Government Departments, CIPFA and borough councils. A close reading of the Local Government Act 1963 will show that the GLC is obliged to provide information to the public in general. It has done so for the 20 years of its existence, and has done so to great effect and with some efficiency. I am sure that the Secretary of State would wish to join me in congratulating the GLC's information and library services on their excellent provision of information to boroughs and to civil servants. If the Secretary of State wants to study all this information, I can make it far more freely available to him than he has ever made information in the hands of his Department available to us. Opposition Members are charitable, even though we are sometimes sorely taxed by Ministers.
The information will have to be provided before abolition has been agreed. We do not know to whom it will go or what use will be made of it. We do not know what use the Secretary of State will make of it when he receives it. No allowance is made for the fact that officers might have sincerely held conscientious objections to providing the information. Anyone who is about to lose his job because of information provided by himself has every right

to raise conscientious objections to providing that information. Nobody can expect officers in local authorities to work themselves out of a job.
If the Secretary of State had seen fit to set up a Royal Commission or an inquiry, GLC officers would have co-operated willingly and no doubt the information given would have assisted the Secretary of State to realise what an awful proposal he is making. Indeed, he might even have been encouraged to drop it altogether, which would have pleased all Opposition Members and what appears to be a growing number of Conservative Members.
Will the Minister tell us what will happen if individuals refuse to co-operate or if the National and Local Government Officers Association or the GLC staff association instruct their members not to co-operate? We might find that the Bill is on the statute book but that the elected GLC still exists before the Act has gone through Parliament. That is perfectly feasible. In those circumstances, officers will be required to give information to do themselves out of a job while their employers, such as me, a directly elected member of the GLC, will still be a member of that council and holding them to account for what they do. Whose will shall prevail—the Secretary of State's or that of elected members of the GLC? Speaking as a member of the GLC, I assure the Secretary of State, that I shall do everything that I can to frustrate what he is doing. I have always spoken openly to him. He should be under no illusions. I shall encourage the GLC staff association and NALGO to ban the provision of information for the Secretary of State because the Bill is bad and the requirements it imposes on individuals infringe their civil and personal rights. They have a perfectly respectable right to tell the Secretary of State or whoever is sent from Marsham street to get the information, "Up yours. You will not get the information from us." In that sense we shall encourage GLC staff to defy this law and give them the support that we can provide as employers.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: That is anarchy.

Mr. Banks: It is not. Conservative Members are the experts in anarchy—they are about to introduce it into Britain's local government. We are saying that if our staff at county hall have conscientious objections to providing the type of information that is required, we shall support them. It is no use the Minister looking at his watch. I have not finished by a long chalk. At least we can inflict something on the Minister by way of small payment for what he is inflicting on local government in London and elsewhere.

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: Boredom.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) is always at liberty to return to the Tea Room.

Mr. Winnick: Or somewhere else where he would be more at home.

Mr. Banks: Has the Secretary of State thought about the extra demands that will be made on GLC and metropolitan county officers? GLC officers are already sorely taxed in fighting hard to resist the Government's attempts to abolish them. They are also working hard on running London's services and are doing an excellent job. The Bill will impose greater demands on them. If, under its present leadership, the GLC was minded to provide the information and recruited more officers to provide what


the Secretary of State requires to abolish us, we would be attacked by him for employing more people when we were facing abolition. Our officers' time is now so sorely stretched that they cannot meet the Secretary of State's demands on them.
What will happen to officers who have conscientious objections to providing information or are told by their unions that they should not provide it, or to those whose work load is such that they cannot provide the information? As an elected member of the GLC who will still be there after the Bill goes through, I shall them not to provide the information. That will put those officers. in a most invidious position. I am sure that many of them will refuse to give the information What will happen to them? Are they going to be dragged to court? The hon. Member for Surbiton. (Mr. Tracey) approached the problem from a completely different, but incorrect, angle. However, be certainly identified something that was missing. What are sanctions? What will happen to those officers who refuse to give information? Will they be dragged through the courts? What will happen to the elected Members like me who incite them to break the law? Will the Secretary of State try to drag me through the courts as well? I would greatly welcome the opportunity that that would present. However, I do not think that he will do so. Nevertheless, he should not leave the matter open.
As on so many other points, many questions remain unanswered and many ends need to be tied up. Frankly, I do not think that the Secretary of State knows what will happen. But it is about time that he directed his attention to such problems, because they will arise, and the Bill is silent on them. That is yet further evidence of the total inadequacy of the Government's proposal. It is a bastardization of legislation and a mess. It deserves someone like the Secretary of State to try to implement it.
This legislation is yet another example of Big Brother. It is an example of the Government coming along with hobnailed boots saying "You will do what we say, and if you don't we'll kick your teeth in. We will take you to the courts and force you to do it." Once again, the whole concept of service is being trampled on by the Government in these clauses. What do the Secretary of State and the Minister think about this issue? Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that he has to coerce officers in that unpleasant way? Why does he not say, "We clearly don't have the information that we need to get this through, so we will look at it again, and ask for some form of independent inquiry."? Then, perhaps, the Government would not have to threaten good, decent loyal officers in the GLC and the metropolitan county councils with a conflict of loyalty and the possibility of imprisonment, a fine, or whatever. Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us the answer to that.

Mr. Waldegrave: I frequently have to follow the brand of shrill inaccuracy in which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) seems to specialise. I thought that he was unwise to make that little speech about disobeying the law. His importance, like mine, and that of any hon. Member, depends entirely, such as it is, on the law. If he faced a rates strike by some London ratepayers, he would rely on the law, in the form of the General Rate Act, which was passed by this House. Thus, his position does not rest on his eloquence, such as it is, or on his importance as an individual—which is small—but, as for all of us, it rests on the law. He should think a little more before he makes those rather childish speeches.
I shall start by trying to help the Committee by reminding right hon. and hon. Members of the twin purposes of clause 7. It is intended to assist first in formulating the abolition proposals, and secondly — subject to Parliament's approval—in implementing the transfer of those authorities' functions to the successor authorities. On both counts, access to the necessary information will obviously be vital. It is therefore necessary for the Bill to ensure that such information is available in preparation for the abolition legislation, for consideration of it by Parliament, and in the run-up to abolition.
There is, of course, already a duty on every local authority to provide my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with information about its functions. We have taken this opportunity to clarify that requirement for the purposes of abolition. Clause 7 therefore makes it clear that the information that the GLC and the metropolitan county councils already have a duty to supply, includes abolition information. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). I think that he said that he thought that he was such a terrifying figure that I would not even look at him. I can think of reasons for not looking at him, but fear is not one of them.
It is perfectly clear that the information stipulated in the clause is limited to that which relates to abolition, so the time scale would run out with abolition. The clause extends that duty to the officers of those authorities—a provision which would be deleted if the amendments were accepted.
Opposition Members have said that the provision would place officers in an invidious position—

Mr. Freud: rose—

Mr. Waldegrave: The debate has rambled on for many hours. With all due respect, it might be better if I tried to answer some of the points so that we can make progress. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way!"] No, I shall not give way.
Opposition Members have said that the provision would place officers in an invidious position because they might have to choose between obeying the law and obeying their employers, but that argument is wholly misconceived. In fact, the duty is a protection for the officers concerned. Its effect is to leave no doubt at all as to their obligations. Without it, they could be placed in a very difficult position if conflicting demands were made by the employer, the Government and the lower-tier authorities without there being any guidance as to which course to take.
I do not pretend that the period that the officers concerned will have to work through will be other than

difficult. I recognise that there will be great burdens upon them, but they are public servants — part of the apparatus of public service—and we rely on their spirit of public service. I am not so gloomy as to think that they will throw away that tradition at the behest of the Opposition.
In many respects, it may not be a pleasant state of affairs for the officers concerned, but I should make it clear that such a situation will be the creation of the employing authority and no one else. If a statutory duty to provide information is imposed by Parliament, no one—not even the more vociferous authorities involved—has the right to defy Parliament's wishes. The duty imposed in subsections (2) and (3) leaves no doubt as to the course that individual officers must take.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) asked about sanctions. If such a situation ever arose—I very much hope that it will not—it would be for the courts to pursue the matter by mandamus or possibly by injunctions in certain cases.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman made a speech which he almost admitted was a filibuster. I shall not give way to him. [Interruption.] For the benefit of those who were not present when the hon. Gentleman spoke—

Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. The substance of our argument related to clarification of one word—"officer".

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to his point of order. He is now on a point of argument.

Mr. Freud: In those circumstances, surely it is wrong for the Under-Secretary of State to use the term in question without explaining what it means.

The Second Deputy Chairman: It is for the Minister to make his speech in the way that he chooses.

Mr. Waldegrave: I should have thought that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) could do better than that rather trivial point, but I shall be coming to it due course.
I wish to reassure the Committee also on a related concern. If an officer had to provide information against the wishes of the employing authority, no question of breach of contract of employment would arise because it is an implied term of every contract of service that an employee may not be required to do an unlawful act or to refrain from carrying out a legal duty.
Amendments Nos. 86 to 89 deal with requests for information made by the Secretary of State. They do not affect requests made by the boroughs or districts. The amendments would require the Secretary of State, before asking for information from a GLC, metropolitan council, borough council or district council officer, to consult
bodies representative of officers concerned
about the terms of the request. I understand that the purpose of that is to ensure that there is no question of an unreasonable request—for example, a request that could not be met for reasons of availability of information. That concern, however, is misplaced, because if it ever came to enforcement the duty would be enforced by the courts through the various discretionary remedies. The courts would apply common sense to the circumstances of the case and would not enforce an unreasonable request.
The amendments would also be damaging in that they would introduce uncertainty and delay into the process of acquiring information from the upper tier. There would be uncertainty about how the representative bodies should be chosen. The amendments are silent on that. Is it for the Secretary of State or for staff interests to determine or, however unlikely it may seem in view of the attitudes that one or two Opposition Members have threatened, for agreement between the parties? An authority determined to be obstructive would no doubt exploit those uncertainties to maximise delay. The amendments are similarly silent about what constitutes consultation. It would provide opportunities for delay if authorities chose to test each case in the courts.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) played on the definition of "officer". That is not a difficult point in local government legislation. Section 112(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 states that an "officer" is appointed by a local authority as being,
necessary for the proper discharge of…their…functions.
The hon. Gentleman also asked what "Secretary of State" meant. Such a phrase also occurs in every Act. The term "Secretary of State" may include civil servants if they are authorised by the Secretary of State to carry out a particular action.
Amendment No. 103 is different. It relates only to the metropolitan county councils. Its effect is to impose the duty to supply information on the proper officer of each MCC. The Committee will know that "proper officer" is a term well known in local government Acts. It is defined in section 270(3) of the Local Government Act 1972, as an officer appointed by an authority for a particular purpose, and was widely used in that legislation.
It would completely frustrate the information provision if the proper officer appointed by the relevant council did not have, and had no means of obtaining, the information that was requested. It would be a completely unenforceable duty because the courts could not force a proper officer to comply with a request if he had no means of doing so. Moreover, authorities generally have no duty to appoint proper officers. The 1972 legislation merely enables them to do so. To apply that approach in the Bill would, therefore, be unsatisfactory. It would be possible for one of these authorities to seek to frustrate the objects of the Bill by failing to appoint a proper officer.
During this wide-ranging debate, Opposition Members have made our case for us. They have breathed threats, and rattled sabres. Who, therefore, can blame the Government for trying to equip themselves with the minimum powers needed simply to provide the information necessary to carry out the will of Parliament? I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.

Mr. Allan Roberts: First I congratulate all my right hon. and hon. Friends on making a devastatingly unanswerable case for the amendments, which, after listening to the Under-Secretary's reply and to the speeches of the few Conservative Members who bothered to turn up, remains devastatingly unanswered.
The Minister dismissed fleetingly the proposal to designate a proper officer. He said that local authorities would not bother to appoint one and would, therefore, subvert the legislation. A requirement to appoint a proper officer could be written into the legislation, which would overcome the Minister's objections.
Liberal Members and others said that people always go to the chief executive for information. However, the legislation permits any local authority designated in the legislation and the Secretary of State to turn for information to a local officer of any rank, including social workers, housing officers and any designated officer. It is a red herring to discuss whether those hon. Members who happen to be councillors in the metropolitan counties or on the GLC will urge their officers to defy the legislation, because they will defy it of their own volition. [Interruption.] It is inevitable because if the Government believe that local government officers will co-operate in giving themselves the sack they must imagine that local government is peopled with those of the disposition of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is not on. They will not do that.
One of the pleasing aspects of the legislation is that it instructs officers of the Merseyside county council to co-operate with the Liverpool Labour group. I am sure that the Minister did not intend that Ray O'Brien, the chief executive of Merseyside, should have to assist Derek Hatton the deputy leader of the city council in every detail. I do not support the legislation even though I welcome that scenario.
The Conservative-controlled Sefton local authority will be given the power to manipulate and use the county council officers. At the moment Sefton will not admit that the county council exists. Sefton does not answer its letters, and treats it with contempt. The local authority has been thwarting the spirit, if not the letter, of the Tory Act of Parliament that established the metropolitan county councils and Sefton council.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) advanced a strong case not just against this legislation but against the abolition proposal. I hope that all his hon. Friends will support him. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) will not. I am not so sure about the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) because he and the Liverpool Liberals are leading the campaign in favour of the abolition of the metropolitan county councils, or at least they were when they won seats on the Liverpool city council.
In Greater Manchester, Keith Whitmore and the Liberals are leading the campaign against the abolition of the metropolitan county councils. The alliance needs to sort itself out. I wonder how many of its members will be abstaining. The alliance creature is like the Beatles' nowhere man—it does not have a point of view and knows not where it is going.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer. We have always been in favour of regional government. Regional authorities should be able to take their own decisions. We would never have chosen the form of regional government that was inflicted outside London by the Government. We want something much better, which is why there are the different views that he has mentioned.

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has confirmed my ideas about the alliance and its position.
The Opposition have argued strongly against the clause and in support of the amendments. The accusations of Government secrecy, of the destruction of trade union rights, of the destruction of the tradition of loyalty to one's employer, and of the destruction of the impartiality of


local government officers, have not been answered. The Government have not said what information they require that is not already available through the plethora of forms that local government has to complete. The Government have not provided a solution to the problem of the conflict of interest and responsibility of local government officers.
None of the points raised by my hon. Friends has been adequately answered, and therefore I urge my hon. Friends and Conservative Members to vote for the amendments in the Lobby this evening.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 175, Noes 306.

Division No. 313]
[10.43 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Fatchett, Derek


Alton, David
Faulds, Andrew


Anderson, Donald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Ashdown, Paddy
Fisher, Mark


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Flannery, Martin


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Forrester, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foster, Derek


Barnett, Guy
Foulkes, George


Barron, Kevin
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Beith, A. J.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bell, Stuart
Freud, Clement


Benn, Tony
Garret, W. E.


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
George, Bruce


Bermingham, Gerald
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Boyes, Roland
Godman, Dr Norman


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Golding, John


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Gourlay, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hamilton, James (M'Well N)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hardy, Peter


Bruce, Malcolm
Harman, Ms Harriet


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Campbell, Ian
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Canavan, Dennis
Hoyle, Douglas


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Roberts (Aberdeen N)


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clarke, Thomas
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clay, Robert
John, Brynmor


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cohen, Harry
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Coleman, Donald
Kennedy, Charles


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Kirkwood, Archibald


Conlan, Bernard
Leighton, Ronald


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Corbett, Robin
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Craigen, J. M.
Loyden, Edward


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McCartney, Hugh


Cunningham, Dr John
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dalyell, Tam
McGuire, Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
McNamara, Kevin


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McWilliam, John


Deakins, Eric
Madden, Max


Dixon, Donald
Marek, Dr John


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dormand, Jack
Martin, Michael


Douglas, Dick
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dubs, Alfred
Maxton, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Eadie, Alex
Meacher, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Meadowcroft, Michael


Ellis, Raymond
Michie, William


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Mikardo, Ian


Ewing, Harry
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce





Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Short Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Skinner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


O'Brien, William
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'Kl'ds E)


O'Neill, Martin
Snape, Peter


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Soley, Clive


Park, George
Strang, Gavin


Parry, Robert
Straw, Jack


Patchett, Terry
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Pendry, Tom
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Penhaligon, David
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Pike, Peter
Tinn, James


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Torney, Tom


Radica, Giles
Wainwright, R.


Randall Stuart
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Redmond, M.
Wareing, Robert


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Weetch, Ken


Richardson, Ms Jo
White, James


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Robertson, George
Winnick, David


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Woodall, Alec


Rooker, J. W.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Rowlands, Ted
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Ryman, John



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Allen McKay and


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Mr. Frank Haynes.


Shore, Rt Hon Peter





NOES


Adley, Robert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydan S)


Aitken, Jonathan
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Alexander, Richard
Cockeram, Eric


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Colvin, Michael


Amess, David
Coombs, Simon


Ancram, Michael
Cope, John


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Couchman, James


Atkins, Robert (South, Ribble)
Cranborne, Viscount


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Crouch, David


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Dorrell, Stephen


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Batiste, Spencer
Dover, Den


Bellingham, Henry
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bendall, Vivian
Dunn, Robert


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Eggar, Tim


Best, Keith
Evennett, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Body, Richard
Fallon, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Farr, John


Bottomley, Peter
Favell, Anthony


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forman, Nigel


Bright, Graham
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brinton, Tim
Forth, Eric


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brooke, Hon Peter
Franks, Cecil


Brown, M. (Brigs &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Browne, John
Freeman, Roger


Bruinvels, Peter
Gale, Roger


Bryan, Sir Paul
Galley, Roy


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Buck, Sir Antony
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Budgen, Nick
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bulmer, Esmond
Goodlad, Alastair


Butterfill, John
Gorst, John


Carlisle, John (N Luton),
Gow, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Cash, William
Greenway, Harry


Chapman, Sydney
Gregory, Conal


Chope, Christopher
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Churchil1, W. S.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Grist, Ian


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Ground, Patrick






Gummer, John Selwyn
Mates, Michael


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Maude, Hon Francis


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hanley, Jeremy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hannam, John
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mellor, David


Harris, David
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Harvey, Robert
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Moate, Roger


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hawksley, Warren
Moore, John


Hayes, J.
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hayward, Robert
Moynihan, Hon C.


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Murphy, Christopher


Heddle, John
Neale, Gerrard


Henderson, Barry
Needham, Richard


Hickmet, Richard
Nelson, Anthony


Hill, James
Neubert, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Newton, Tony


Hirst, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Normanton, Tom


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Norris, Steven


Holt, Richard
Onslow, Cranley


Hooson, Tom
Oppenheim, Philip


Hordern, Peter
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Howard, Michael
Osborn, Sir John


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Ottaway, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Page, John (Harrow W)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Parris, Matthew


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hunter, Andrew
Pawsey, James


Irving, Charles
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Jackson, Robert
Pollock, Alexander


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Porter, Barry


Jessel, Toby
Powell, William (Corby)


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Powley, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Price, Sir David


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Raff an, Keith


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Key, Robert
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Renton, Tim


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Rhodes James, Robert


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knowles, Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lang, Ian
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Latham, Michael
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rost, Peter


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rowe, Andrew


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ryder, Richard


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lightbown, David
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lilley, Peter
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McCrea, Rev William
Shersby, Michael


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Silvester, Fred


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Sims, Roger


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Maclean, David John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Madel, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maginnis, Ken
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Major, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Malins, Humfrey
Speller, Tony


Malone, Gerald
Spencer, Derek


Maples, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, John





Stern, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Walden, George


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Waller, Gary


Stokes, John
Ward, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sumberg, David
Warren, Kenneth


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Watson, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Watts, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wheeler, John


Terlezki, Stefan
Whitfield, John


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Whitney, Raymond


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wolfson, Mark


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Wood, Timothy


Thornton, Malcolm
Woodcock, Michael


Thurnham, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tracey, Richard
Younger, Rt Hon George


Trippier, David



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Mr. Carol Mather and


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment No. 64 proposed, in clause7, page7, line1,leave out 'and its officers',—[Mr. Beith.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided:Ayes 165, Noes 299.

Division No. 314]
[10.53 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Alton, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Anderson, Donald
Deakins, Eric


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dixon, Donald


Ashdown, Paddy
Dobson, Frank


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dormand, Jack


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Douglas, Dick


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dubs, Alfred


Barnett, Guy
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barron, Kevin
Eadie, Alex


Beith, A. J.
Eastham, Ken


Bell, Stuart
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Benn, Tony
Ewing, Harry


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Fatchett, Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Faulds, Andrew


Boyes, Roland
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Forrester, John


Bruce, Malcolm
Foster, Derek


Buchan, Norman
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Campbell, Ian
Freud, Clement


Canavan, Dennis
George, Bruce


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Godman, Dr Norman


Cartwright, John
Golding, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gourlay, Harry


Clarke, Thomas
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Clay, Robert
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hardy, Peter


Cohen, Harry
Harman, Ms Harriet


Coleman, Donald
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Conlan, Bernard
Haynes, Frank


Corbett, Robin
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Craigen, J. M.
Hoyle, Douglas


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Cunningham, Dr John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)






Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Randall, Stuart


Janner, Hon Greville
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


John, Brynmor
Richardson, Ms Jo


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Robertson, George


Kennedy, Charles
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Leighton, Ronald
Rooker, J. W.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheerman, Barry


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Loyden, Edward
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McCartney, Hugh
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


McGuire, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


McWilliam, John
Snape, Peter


Madden, Max
Soley, Clive


Marek, Dr John
Strang, Gavin


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Straw, Jack


Martin, Michael
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Maxton, John
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Meacher, Michael
Tinn, James


Michie, William
Torney, Tom


Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, R.


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wardell Gareth (Gower)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wareing, Robert


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Weetch, Ken


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
White, James


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


O'Brien, William
Winnick, David


O'Neill, Martin
Woodall, Alec


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Park, George
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Parry, Robert



Pavitt, Laurie
Tellers for the Ayes:


Penhaligon, David
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and


Pike, Peter
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Buck, Sir Antony


Alexander, Richard
Budgen, Nick


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bulmer, Esmond


Amess, David
Butterfill, John


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Cash, William


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Churchill, W. S.


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Batiste, Spencer
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bendall, Vivian
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Cockeram, Eric


Best, Keith
Colvin, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Simon


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Cope, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Couchman, James


Body, Richard
Cranborne, Viscount


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Crouch, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Dorrell, Stephen


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dover, Den


Bright, Graham
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Brinton, Tim
Dunn, Robert


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Eggar, Tim


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Evennett, David


Browne, John
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bruinvels, Peter
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fallon, Michael


Buchan, Norman
Farr, John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Favell, Anthony





Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lawrence, Ivan


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fletcher, Alexander
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forman, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Forth, Eric
Lightbown, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lilley, Peter


Franks, Cecil
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Freeman, Roger
Lord, Michael


Gale, Roger
Lyell, Nicholas


Galley, Roy
McCrea, Rev William


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Garel-Jones, Tristan
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Glyn, Dr Alan
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maclean, David John


Goodlad, Alastair
Madel, David


Gorst, John
Maginnis, Ken


Gow, Ian
Major, John


Gower, Sir Raymond
Malins, Humfrey


Greenway, Harry
Malone, Gerald


Gregory, Conal
Maples, John


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Marland, Paul


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grist, Ian
Mates, Michael


Ground, Patrick
Maude, Hon Francis


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Mellor, David


Hannam, John
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Harris, David
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Harvey, Robert
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Haselhurst, Alan
Moate, Roger


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Moore, John


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Hayes, J.
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hayhoe, Barney
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hayward, Robert
Murphy, Christopher


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neale, Gerrard


Heddle, John
Needham, Richard


Henderson, Barry
Nelson, Anthony


Hickmet, Richard
Neubert, Michael


Hill, James
Newton, Tony


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholls, Patrick


Hirst, Michael
Normanton, Tom


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Norris, Steven


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Oppenheim, Philip


Holt, Richard
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hooson, Tom
Osborn, Sir John


Hordern, Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Howard, Michael
Page, John (Harrow W)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Parris, Matthew


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pawsey, James


Hunter, Andrew
Pollock, Alexander


Irving, Charles
Porter, Barry


Jackson, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Powley, John


Jessel, Toby
Proctor, K. Harvey


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Raffan, Keith


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Tim


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rhodes James, Robert


Key, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Knowles, Michael
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Lamont, Norman
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lang, Ian
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Latham, Michael
Rost, Peter


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew






Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Ryder, Richard
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Thornton, Malcolm


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Thurnham, Peter


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tracey, Richard


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Trippier, David


Shersby, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Silvester, Fred
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Sims. Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Skeet, T. H. H.
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)
Walden, George


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Speller, Tony
Ward, John


Spencer, Derek
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Warren, Kenneth


Squire, Robin
Watson, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watts, John


Stanley, John
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stern, Michael
Wheeler, John


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Whitfield, John


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Whitney, Raymond


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Wilkinson, John


Stokes, John
Wolfson, Mark


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wood, Timothy


Sumberg, David
Woodcock, Michael


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Terlezki, Stefan
Mr. Carol Mather and


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 102, in page 7, line 1, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
'(2) Any officer of the council of a London borough or the Common Council, duly authorised in that behalf, and any other person authorised by the Secretary of State shall, for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of this section, be entitled during ordinary office hours to inspect and take extracts from any books or documents of the Greater London Council.
(3) Any officer of the council of a metropolitan district, duly authorised in that behalf, and any other person authorised by the Secretary of State shall, for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1)(b) of this section, be entitled during ordinary office hours, to inspect and take extracts from any books or documents of the council of the metropolitan county comprising such district.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this I understand that it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 33, in page 7, line 5, at end insert 'reasonably'.
No. 36, in page 7, line 12, after 'may', insert 'reasonably'.
No. 104, in page 7, line 12, at end add.—
'(4) A London borough council, the Common Council and a metropolitan district council making a request under this section shall furnish the relevant authority with all such information relating to the request as that authority may by notice reasonably require
(5) In subsection (4) of this section, "relevant authority" means the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council, as the case may be.".'.

Mr. Fraser: It is typical of the jackbooted arrogance of the Bill that the GLC and the metropolitan counties, which are being deprived of their rights and obligations, and the officers in those authorities, are to be subjected to an unconditional right of interrogation not merely by the

Secretary of State—we discussed that matter on the last group of amendments—but by the London boroughs and the metropolitan districts. In the Bill there is no qualification of or limit to the purpose for which the information can be required.
Clause 7(1) defines the purposes for which information may be required, but it does not govern subsections (2) and (3). There is no limit on the scope of information that can be demanded, not just of councils, but of officers, and not just by the Secretary of State, but by the metropolitan districts and the London boroughs. I shall give an example. If my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North—West (Mr. Banks) or the man I once recruited into the Labour party, Ken Livingstone, wanted to plain a campaign, poll or protest through the GLC legally and within its powers, the boroughs could demand information and details of consultation documents before they had even seen the light of day. Subsections (2) and (3) are so widely drawn that there is little limit on the information that can be obtained.
Clause 7 enables the London boroughs such as Bromley, Kingston and Merton to have a Watergate without the plumbers. They do not need to tap or bug the GLC; they can simply send in their requests for information under clause 7. The clause is unusual. There are powers to obtain information under the Local Government Act 1972. Section 230 states:
Every local authority, every joint board and every joint committee of local authorities shall send the Secretary of State such reports and returns, and give him such information with respect to their functions, as he may require or as may be required by either House of Parliament.
In the drafting of clause 7, the Government have given power to obtain information not just about the functions of the GLC and metropolitan boroughs but about the authorities themselves. Therefore, the Bromley bovver boys who use legal actions and writs in the same way as other people use Dr. Martin's boots and bicycle chains could go on a fishing expedition for information relating to the GLC to found their next set of legal proceedings against that authority.
Therefore, amendment No. 102 limits the demand for information to the purposes mentioned in subsection (1)(a) and (b). Secondly, and properly, it places the burden of the expense of obtaining the information upon those who demand it. After all, if hon. Members put down a parliamentary question that requires much information, we are likely to get a reply from the Department of the Environment or any other Department telling us that the information can be provided only at disproportionate expense. In the amendment, we are saying that the expense should be borne by the person demanding the information rather than by the local authority that has to supply it.
The effect of amendment No. 33 and its associated amendment is simply to put a limit on the information provided so that it can be provided only if it is reasonably required. If the Government resist the amendment, they are saying that authorities such as Bromley, the trouble makers of the London scene, will be able to require information unreasonably. There is no reason why amendments Nos. 33 and 36 should not be accepted, thus limiting the demand for information to that which is reasonably required.
To back up the requirement that the information should be required reasonably, the GLC or the MCC will be able


to ask those requiring the information for a reasonable explanation of why the information is sought from them or their officers.
This is a group of amendments that is less far reaching than the last group that we voted on. They propose to limit the expense that will fall on the MCCs and the GLC in the provision of information by making sure that information is not provided for trouble-making purposes, but simply when reasonably required. That is a proper proposition for the Government to accept. It puts the demand for information on the footing of the 1972 legislation, and we hope that after a short debate the Government will accept the amendments.

Mr. Terry Fields: I do not suppose that many Conservative Members will be coming into the Lobby with us on these amendments, but they have a reason to do so. In Roget's Thesaurus, the synonyms for reasonableness are moderate, probable, judicious, sane and right, and then cheap. That may appeal to Tory Members.
I shall speak about the running and the functions of the fire service and the transfer of power. I start by declaring an interest in that I served for 26 years as an operational fireman, working in fire prevention, and during that time I had the good fortune and privilege of representing the firemen on the national executive of the Fire Brigades Union, representing people at the short sharp end of things. I have seen many improvements, in wages, in hours and in manpower, but we would never have achieved them out of the reasonableness of the employers — certainly of the Tory employers. Only the Fire Brigades Union stood strong and tried to improve things in the forces. While politicians are looking at the budgets and balancing the books, the chief officers are drawing up alternatives in fire prevention and looking to the interests of the general public.
We need to expose to the people what the Government are attempting to do through this legislation, and to show the hyprocisy of the Government and some local authorities, who pay lip service to safety and the protection of life, but who are prepared to play Russian roulette with people's lives. That is the reason for the abolition of the MCCs and of the transfer of functions. Our amendments talk about reasonableness and attempt to put a check on what the Government are trying to do.
If our amendments do not succeed, we are heading for the pre-1974 situation before reorganisation. Merseyside, for example, took over fire services that had been run by county boroughs, with ghost establishments, where operational personnel were non-existent, despite Home Office standards, where targets were never reached in recruitment, where there were clapped out fire appliances, where there was what is called jump manning, where one crew was manning two, three and sometimes four fire engines, with poor uniform and equipment. We are demanding reasonableness because we know from what happened before what can happen again.
We have fought for changes and recruitment, and we are not going to give them up because the Government are setting up these quango boards to run the fire service. We have seen Tory local authorities prepared to tear up the

agreements that we have had and to give two fingers to the Home Office the standards that have been laid down, because their interpretation of reasonableness is cheap.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the amendments, which deal with access to information. He must restrict his remarks to the amendments.

Mr. Fields: Access to information relates to the way in which the boards will be established. They are opening the books because, despite the budgets drawn up by the Merseyside authority, the reasonableness of the demands is far from what we are discussing. We give fair warning that the interpretation of reasonableness may be borne out by the attitude of the Wirral local authority, as part of the Merseyside metropolitan authority. The services are being privatised. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the fire service will be privatised. It is not long past when insurance interests looked at Merseyside and said that it could operate on six fire stations rather than 30. They are more concerned about paying out for people's lives and property than about running the fire service.
The Government's intention is to open the books, for whatever nefarious reasons. The firemen will stand strong. At their conference last week they gave a clear warning to the Government and everyone else—touch one job and there will be an all-out strike. The Government had better take note of that. We are picking up the lessons of Liverpool; we are banding together to struggle to maintain, on behalf of the public, what the Government want to get rid of—local democracy and the protection of people. We oppose what the Government want to do. We have tabled this reasonable amendment in an attempt to safeguard the country against what the Government are trying to do.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish to discuss amendments Nos. 102, 33 and 36.
The Liberal party supports amendment No. 102. If the Government are not minded to accept the amendment, why not? The Minister will recognise the words from their own legislation in earlier forms. They have precedents in two recent Conservative Acts—section 71 of the New Towns Act 1981, and paragraph 14 of schedule 31 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. In both those Acts, the method for providing information is to have a delegated officer doing the job. That would reduce the red tape, bureaucracy, overlapping of commands and so on.
If the Government are serious about trying to reduce the obligations of employees in local councils, I ask them seriously to consider the arguments put forward and also the arguments that they put forward only three and four years ago respectively. Those provisions are the way to ensure that the vast amount of information obtained is channeled in the most appropriate way.
On amendments Nos. 33 and 36, I have not added up —but I could have done—the number of times that the Under—Secretary said that the test of the behaviour of local authorities would be "reasonableness". It is the word that he imagines is implied at all times and would be the criterion by which courts would adjudicate whether there had been compliance with the law by officers or members of councils. The amendment would add the word upon which the Under-Secretary has placed so much reliance. The hon. Gentleman's only objection could be that the


word was implicit in the Bill. I do not accept that, just as, when the hon. Gentleman said in another connection that the test would necessarily be reasonableness, I did not accept that. In terms of administrative and public law, that is clearly not the case.
I am particularly anxious that the hon. Gentleman should accept amendments Nos. 33 and 36. Let us imagine that there will be, because of the Government's proposed sleight of hand, a sudden overnight change in May 1985 from an elected Labour GLC to a noelected Conservative GLC, even without any legislation being passed. Let us imagine that, after that, my local authority of Southwark, where there is a Labour majority, or the neighbouring authority of Lambeth, decides to make life difficult for the Government-contrived GLC. Southwark, Lambeth and other councils might decide to make the life of the GLC really difficult.

Mr. John Fraser: Bromley is already doing it.

Mr. Hughes: Bromley did it, and there were great debates on the London Regional Transport Bill on just such a clause. However, under the present London Regional Transport Bill proposals, one will not be able to take someone to court even if he is not doing his duty. That possibility will no longer be available. Having reduced the powers of the citizen, the Government take away his remaining right to challenge the abuse of authority.
What would there be to stop Southwark, Lambeth or any other Labour authority with strong Left-wing views from bombarding the Tory transitional GLC with requests for information, in order to derive political advantage for its cause and its case or to bring the work of the GLC to a halt?
If the Government are so determined to convert a Labour GLC into a Tory GLC, do they not realise that one of the consequences of their action may be that they will completely thwart the possibility of their contrived GLC doing its job? That is a ludicrous proposition in terms of practicalities, and it is evidence of the total lack of coherence of the Government's arguments.
Furthermore, unless the Government accept "reasonably"—I shall be surprised if they can find an argument for not writing in a word which we are told is implied in the rest of the Bill—there will also be an implication for the Labour metro-counties. However clever the Government are, they will not be able to change the composition of the metropolitan counties immediately. They may be able to change the balance of power, but not the overall control. Will not the effect of the present proposals be to allow some of the Tory-controlled district councils—Sefton springs to mind, but there are many others—to make life difficult for their Labour-controlled metropolitan counties for the remaining year?
The amendment would prevent the playing of political games. Unless the Government accept the amendment, they are asking for political games to be played. Just as I suspect that the Secretary of State may well ask for the provision of all sorts of information that could not reasonably be asked for, even while the Government are allowing the GLC and the metropolitan counties to exist, by grace and favour, for a further year, I also suspect that unless the seeking and obtaining of information has to be carried out reasonably, there will be unjustified, expensive, extravagant, wasteful and interfering exercises aimed by one side at the other, to prevent councils from getting on with the job of serving their electorates.
I hope that the Minister will accept these amendments, especially amendments Nos. 33 and 36, and explain why, in 1980 and 1981 the Government introduced a proposal that used exactly the words of amendment No. 102 when, three years later, they are not prepared to accept it.

Mr. Tony Banks: I should like to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) said about the fire services. In view of his experience, I am sure that he will know that the London fire brigade is likely to react similarly to jobs disappearing. If I am not much mistaken, the London fire brigade is already on record as saying that it will resist all cuts. The GLC has, to its credit, made good all the cuts imposed by the previous Conservative administration. We are pleased about that and I am sure that the ratepayers of London are even happier. If one's house is burning down, it is no good being told that no fire appliance is available because of Government cuts. Such an argument does not wear too well.
11.30 pm
I might add that firemen in Scotland recently took action in support of the miners who are defending their jobs. If they are prepared to do that, how much more likely are they to defend their own. The Minister should think carefully about that. I assume, but cannot think why, the Minister will resist these amendments about the reasonableness of requiring that reasons be supplied before information is given. I am indebted to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for putting a malicious thought in my mind, which was a repository of innocence until I heard his speech. I had never thought of the angle that he outlined. I shall now hasten to see my good friend Ted Knight in Lambeth to ensure that what the hon. Gentleman talked of comes true if the Bill goes through unamended. I hope that that encourages the Minister to think about accepting the amendment, as I can faithfully promise that what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey described will come about.
A far greater risk will come from organisations such as Aims of Industry, which is the shadowy presence behind Lady Porter—the leader of Westminster city council—and Bromley council. The use to which they put information could be malicious. I remind the House that an anti-GLC organisation was set up under the aegis of Aims of Industry by Sir Horace Cutler, then leader of the Conservatives in the GLC, deliberately to drag the GLC through the courts on every pretext that they could conjure up. I can imagine this shadowy organisation that is now called just Aims continuing to do that, and using this part of the Bill to get the doughty Lady Porter, on behalf of Westminster city council, to get information to make vile propaganda against the GLC. Recently Aims has been circulating vile propaganda about the GLC. It is therefore perfectly "reasonable" for us to say that it should be reasonable for anyone requesting information to say why it is required and to what purpose it will be put. Given the looming presence of comrade Ted Knight and Aims of Industry around this place, I hope that the Minister is prepared to accept the amendments.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am afraid that amendment No. 102 is unsatisfactory. I think that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) argued the wrong way. I should have thought that the mechanism set out in amendment No. 102 — whereby people would look through the


books—would encourage the very fishing operation that he rightly thinks would be time wasting. To limit a search for necessary information to looking at particular books in particular places would only waste everyone's time. The request should be properly formulated and then the information, which may not until then have been collated in exactly the way that the request seeks, should be provided. I agreed with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, and one does not want to waste the time of officials in either tier with unnecessary information, or information that is badly formulated or mischievous. However, I should have thought that the mechanism chosen in amendment No. 102 would make that worse.
I turn to amendments Nos. 33 and 36. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I have debated the reasonableness point from time to time. However, the addition of the word in this instance does not add much. Any request for information must be for the purposes defined in clause 7(1). Admittedly, that is a broad definition. Indeed, it is inevitably so, since it would be impossible to list in advance every piece of legislation likely to be needed. Nevertheless, subsection (1) places a real limit on the requests for information that may properly be made. A court would be able to decide whether a request was properly made for one of the defined purposes, or improperly for some extraneous purpose. Perhaps that deals with the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about the behaviour of the leader of Lambeth council. The court would judge whether the information was to be put to a mischievous or improper use. The information has to be of use in the formulation of, or delivery of, the plans for the abolition of the councils.

Mr. Tony Banks: Who will decide what is reasonable?

Mr. Waldegrave: If there is an argument, it would have to be decided by the court. I made that clear in earlier debates. I differ with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, because to insert the word "reasonably" is at best meaningless—because, as I have often rightly said, such a discretionary power has to be used reasonably —and at worst it may add vagueness, because the court would want to know why, rather oddly, the world "reasonably" has been inserted at this one juncture. Its inclusion may add to the uncertainty rather than diminishing it.
Section 230 of the Local Government Act 1972, upon which the clause is based, does not impose any limitation on requests for information which may be made by the Secretary of State or Parliament. Although in some respects clause 7 goes wider than section 230, it is subject to an express limitation on the purposes for which the request is made. The amendments are, I think, unnecessary, and I ask the Committee to reject them.

Mr. Boyes: How does the Minister think that the interim bodies will ever work? The number of staff will be reduced, and the staff will be demoralised and very unhappy. There could be challenges in court on a whole series of matters. The Minister has been present all this evening, and has done a long stint in the Chamber. He will remember that earlier I quoted MISC 95 — that mechanisms are set up to deal with these matters. Will he confirm that the obstruction that is anticipated in MISC 95 is a whole series of court battles?

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not wish to stray too far from the amendment. Even the hon. Member for Newham, North-West does not control single-handedly the behaviour of the GLC, and I hope that some of the threats and the sabre-rattling that we have heard will not turn out to be true. It is possible that, if everyone behaves as stupidly as possible, there will be a muddle, but considering the conditions of service, although we may have come to the conclusion that much of the structure is not needed, people such as Maurice Stonecroft will not throw away the traditions of a lifetime and behave absurdly.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister reflect on the fact that it would be helpful guidance for the officers of the GLC and the metropolitan counties in their interim form if they knew that they could refuse an unreasonable request? Provision is not made for that in the Bill at present.

Mr. Waldegrave: I have argued that to insert the word "reasonable" is a mistake and might add to confusion, but I am happy to confirm that they will have a defence in the courts against a mischievous search for information for which they believe they could make a good case.
Amendment No. 104 is a probing amendment, but the mechanism that it proposes is unnecessary and undesirable, in that it almost invites an endless process of ping-pong while people send requests and counter-requests to and fro, which would lead only to delay. I need not spend too much time urging my hon. Friends to oppose that.
The three amendments are not among the most powerful urged upon us. There is much in what the hon. Member for Norwood said with which I agree. However, despite the protestations of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who has always tried to persuade us to go down various garden paths, I must urge the Committee to reject the amendments.

Mr. Freud: I wish to speak briefly to only two amendments. In relation to amendment No. 36, following the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's reluctance to include the word "reasonable" and his insistence that there might be some mischievous inquiry, which, if this were not included, would make this a worse Bill, I wish to tell him that it is a question not of mischief, but of whose reasonable conduct it is. I foresee the Minister asking a metropolitan county council to let him have the numbers of pupils attending a school, and it would be right for that county council to believe that that was an unreasonable request, because the number of children at the school would be declining. He will know that there is nothing that tends to make parents remove their children from school more than the fear that it might close.
The word "reasonable" here would be of great benefit to the metropolitan counties. I am delighted to see that, as we are beginning to get to the end of the amendments and to the beginning of the clause stand part debate, the Government Benches have been reinforced by having the sole support of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). Seven Conservative Members are now here to support the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 103 is not mischievous although, on the face of it, it might seem to incite anyone to go to a county council office and ask for this, that or the other


paper during office hours. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has said that there are already procedures for properly formulated questions to be answered, but I wonder whether there will be time for such questions. The staff will be appointed people, already looking for the jobs that they will need after the next elections.
11.45 pm
It seems absolutely right that if the Secretary of State is to have an open book to ask anyone for any information that he wants, officers working for county or metropolitan councils should have the same right to go and ask any question or examine any document during office hours. It is no different from someone appointed to teach at a school as from the autumn term asking for the confidential files on the pupils to prepare himself for what is ahead or a doctor seeking information about a new practice that he is to join. The amendment merely seeks to allow those working for a metropolitan county or for the GLC to have that information during office hours at no expense to the issuing body.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister — who seems deeply interested in talking to the Government Whips—will be persuaded if not to vote with us at least to listen to the arguments.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I am moved to speak by the Minister's comment that the courts would he able to deal with "mischievous"—the legal word may be "vexatious" — requests for information. Having studied the provisions carefully, I find it difficult to see how the courts could do that.
The subsections that amendment No. 102 seeks to delete would leave the power of demand for information entirely to the council involved or to the Secretary of State. Is the Minister saying that the catch-all wording used in those subsections could be properly tested in the courts? I do not see how any court of law could in the extreme define any information as falling outside the remit and failing to relate to or affect the work of the GLC or the metropolitan counties. Every matter with which any of those councils is concerned will be open to inquiry under those subsections. There is nothing that someone wishing to create problems for those councils could not ask for under those provisions.
When one considers the functions of the metropolitan councils and the amazing detail of the information that may be requested by anyone taking over those functions, the mind boggles at what an awkward customer —another authority or the Secretary of State himself—might demand. Their functions do not merely include transportation and such major matters. The metropolitan councils are also interested and involved in waste disposal. The Secretary of State or the councils could always find some information to demand about waste disposal, which will be needed by those who will take over the authorities' functions. It is strange wording to have to defend in the courts.
The question of the separation of powers over gipsy sites is a delicate matter. In the past local authorities embarrassed each other by refusing to take over functions relating to the provision of those sites. Again, the Secretary of State or the authorities in question could ask for information which was not readily available, yet which a court could regard as being intended under the two clauses.
The same question arises regarding consumer protection. The detail that could be required if the clause is unamended is immense. The individuals who are running the councils and who are to be dispensed with, even in the interim period, would be hard put to resist those demands.
The difference between the clause as drafted and the clause if amended is between having the power to inspect what is already there and having to dredge up statistics or other information, which might involve immense work. Even in the House, hon. Members are at times refused an answer to a parliamentary question because it would involve an inordinate amount of work at a disproportionate cost.

Mr. Boyes: Is the hon. Gentleman's experience the same as mine in that it is taking increasingly long to receive from Ministers replies to letters about constituents' problems and other matters? If you agree, is it not remarkable that Tory members, who cannot themselves answer questions in a reasonable time, will demand that a demoralised council answers in a reasonable time?

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must not ask what has been my experience when writing to Ministers. If the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) replies to that, he will be wide of the amendment. Hon. Members must speak to the amendments.

Mr. Boyes: I am talking about the Minister and the Secretary of State. With that little rider, I can expect the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) to answer my question.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I am grateful, Mr. Armstrong, for your direction to the hon. Gentleman. I agree that it is taking longer to receive more detailed information from Ministers, but I understand their difficulties. The Secretary of State may already be employing his staff to devise questions for the councils. They may be beavering away and thinking of devilish information to request under these subsections rather than replying to hon. Members' inquiries.
At present it is extremely difficult for local authorities. This sword is hanging over them. They are trying to demonstrate the value of having councils, that they are required and wish to continue in their present form. Yet they may have to respond to inquiries for abtruse and detailed information. Having to dredge up such statistics may produce appalling problems for the councils.
The Minister seems to be amused by something. I am not sure that he is taking the debate as seriously as it demands. If the word "reasonable" were inserted, the test of reasonableness would be available to the courts. Many courts have that test—for example, tribunals. Unless and until that is written into the Bill and the amendments are accepted, it cannot be argued that these subsections do not give draconian powers to the councils and the Secretary of State. I beg the Minister to accept the amendments.

Mr. Eric Deakins: The Minister's reply to amendments Nos. 33 and 34 does an injustice to his intelligence. He has opened a Pandora's box by talking about the possibility of court actions under clause 7. There could be many court actions and that would frustrate the purpose of the clause and the transitional period. I believe


that in those circumstances the Minister has a duty to himself and to his Department to think again about amendments Nos. 33 and 34.
Clause 7(2) and (3) places an absolute duty on the GLC and the metropolitan county councils and yet the Minister was talking about the possibility of court actions. I do not know what legal advice he received, and, if so, whether it came from the Law Officers or from the Department of the Environment legal department. I hope that in his own interests he will check the advice before the Bill proceeds much further. If the word "reasonable" is not included, the courts will say that there is an absolute duty upon the GLC. That will encourage the GLC and the metropolitan county councils to do their best to frustrate what they may well regard as unreasonable requests.
There will not be that frustration if the Minister accepts the amendments because the word would be open to challenge by the Minister and his Department in the courts on the ground that the GLC was not carrying out its duties under the Act.
There is nothing in clause 7 about the time within which the information is to be provided. Is the Minister contemplating that the Department of the Environment will be taking local authorities to court, because there is no time limit?

Amendment negatived.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I have put the Question. The hon. Member knows how to put his point of order.

Mr. Simon Hughes: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. I understood, and had confirmed, that there was to be a debate on the clause standing part of the Bill. I understand that other hon. Members wished to speak to the clause on points that were not covered when we discussed the amendments.
I have specific and separate notes for a clause stand part debate. I ask that you rule, Mr. Armstrong, that we will have an opportunity to debate the clause before it is voted upon.

The First Deputy Chairman: We have had a long and comprehensive debate on clause 7, and, in view of that, I put the Question. I looked carefully, and the hon. Member as not standing when I put the Question.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Teed): (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Armstrong. I understood, and had good reason to do so, that if hon. Members wanted the Chair would permit a debate on clause stand part. I was standing at the Bar of the House when you rose to put the Question. I took care to look and I saw that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was on his feet when you put the Question. Will you put the Question again, or defer putting it, because I do not think that your gaze took in my hon. Friend who, I assure you, was standing when you put the Question?

12 midnight

The First Deputy Chairman: I did look round and I did not see the hon. Gentleman standing. We have had a long and comprehensive debate, but I want to be fair to the Committee and to all hon. Members. I am prepared to call Mr. Simon Hughes. In view of the long discussion we have had, he must not raise any matters that have already been discussed.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful, Mr. Armstrong, and in future I shall try to be quicker in standing up.
I shall give our principal reasons for objecting to the clause standing part of the Bill. First, when the Committee last met, it agreed that clause 6 should stand part of the Bill despite objections from this side. Under that clause the Secretary of State and authorities have a duty to supply information to the staff commission. Before we come to clause 7, which will enable further information to be supplied, there is a whole series of provisions under clause 6 which says:
it shall be the duty of the commission and of a relevant authority to comply with any direction given to it under this subsection.
The direction may relate to
the furnishing of any information requested.
Already there is a provision which will allow information to be passed over.
Secondly, earlier this evening hon. Members, including myself, specifically asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State what information the Department needed that was not supplied by all the other mechanisms that already exist. We have not had an answer. Unless we have an answer, we cannot be persuaded that that information is needed and is not available. It contradicts the Government's own assertion that the proposed legislation is in the interests of economy in running local government when they are providing for the accumulation of more information, which must mean more expense, time and effort.
There are also matters which have not been the subject of specific debate by the Committee which were tabled as amendments and which relate very much to the clause. When one is talking about providing information the principle by which this and every Government act should surely be that the information that is to be transferred and obtained, either by the Secretary of State, as we talked about in regard to subsection (2), or by the GLC or metropolitan councils or the officers of any of them, should be made available to the public, because it is information that the Secretary of State and his friends have been pretending that they have to substantiate their arguments for the whole of the legislation.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying into discussing amendments that were not selected. He must debate the clause as it stands.

Mr. Hughes: The clause as it stands provides for the transfer of information from one authority to another without the information being seen by the most important people, the public.
Lastly and perhaps most important, in past legislation —I should be grateful to know the Minister's reason for not following the precedent of past legislation since the Government claim, often falsely, in the debates on the Bill that precedent is on their side — there have been


attempts to limit the use to be made of the information that is supplied. If the clause stands part of the Bill, information will be provided for constituent councils to use and constituent councils will provide information for the GLC.
The best example of relevant previous legislation is the Local Government Finance Act 1982. The Act makes it clear that once information is obtained by an authority it can be used only for the purpose that is laid down in the Act. We want to know why the Government have not made similar provision in the Bill. Section 30 states:
No information relating to a particular body or other person and obtained by the Commission"—
that is the Audit Commission—
or an auditor, or by a person acting on behalf of the Commission or an auditor"—
the circumstances are parallel because this is information about local government that is obtained by an authority—
pursuant to any provision of this Part of this Act or in the course of any audit or study thereunder shall be disclosed except—(a) with the consent of the body or person to whom the information relates; or (b) for the purposes of any functions of the Commission or an auditor…or (c) for the purposes of any criminal proceedings.
There was sanction in the Act that anyone who disclosed information in contravention of the subsection was liable either on summary conviction or indictment to be dealt with. There is nothing in the Bill that will control the misuse of any information that is acquired. It is appalling, even if it is nearly in the middle of the night, that we should be asked by the Government, or any Government, to give to the present Secretary of State, or any Secretary of State, the power to obtain information and the power to use it for no matter what purpose without any sanction being written into the Bill.
The Secretary of State is proposing widely drawn and badly drafted legislation and it is not sufficient to justify the powers that he is seeking for himself. Every minute that passes in debating the Bill reveals the gross trespass upon constitutional principles that only a year ago he was foremost in proclaiming.

Mr. Waldegrave: All those who have sat through the debate — apart from myself I think that only the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) have done so—will have heard the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) make the same speech twice. It did not seem much good on the first occasion and it seemed no better on the second. At the risk of offending my silent hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who is standing at the Bar, and of getting into trouble generally with the legal profession, I am of the opinion that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has in all his speeches this evening indulged in the sort of nitpicking that does the legal profession no good.
It is obvious what sort of information will be needed. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey recited a list of items relating to grant giving and to Central Statistical Office requirements and asked, "If the Government have all this information, why do they need any more?" I accept that the Government have a great deal of information and that much of the information is available to them, but there will be more needed.
I shall give an example that comes directly from my head. There are hundreds of other similar examples to be found. Let us say that information is available that shows that there is a certain number of employees within an authority's planning department but the borough that will have to organise that planning does not know the grades of the employees or their skills. The bare statistic that there are 25 employees in the office will not be sufficient and the borough will want a little more information, which might not be provided within the present format. It does not need very much imagination to think of the sort of requirements that would arise.
The need for the clause has been made clear to us by some of the sabre rattling from Back Benchers and by charges of obstruction. The need for the clause has been re-emphasised to us and the Government are equipping themselves with the minimum sensible powers that are necessary in the formulation and advancement of their policy. I have no doubt that the Committee will agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill, as it should do.

Mr. John Fraser: The Minister has said that subsections (2) and (3) are limited by subsection (1). He says that that is a reasonable restraint on the requirement for information by the Secretary of State, a London borough or a metropolitan district. I do not think that he is right about that. I do not know how far he is misleading himself or the Committee. The reason for not accepting any amendment is to deny the Committee a Report stage and proper discussion of these matters. If what the Minister said were correct, subsections (2) and (3) of the clause could not operate until the proposals for the abolition of the GLC and of the metropolitan counties had been approved by Parliament. Clause 7 provides:
(1) This section has effect for the purpose of facilitating the formulation and, in the event of their being approved by Parliament, the implementation of proposals.
The least modification that the Government ought to include is that subsections (2) and (3) are governed by subsection (1). That is not the case. In so far as the Committee has been advised that that is the case, it has been wrongly advised, and we now propose to divide against it.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill—

The Committee divided: Ayes 296, Noes, 154.

Division No. 315]
[12.10 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Aitken, Jonathan
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Alexander, Richard
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bright, Graham


Amess, David
Brinton, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Arnold, Tom
Brooke, Hon Peter


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Browne, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Bruinvels, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Buck, Sir Antony


Batiste, Spencer
Bulmer, Esmond


Bellingham, Henry
Butterfill, John


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Best, Keith
Cash, William


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chapman, Sydney


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Chope, Christopher


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Churchill, W. S.


Body, Richard
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Bottomley, Peter
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)






Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Coombs, Simon
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cope, John
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Couchman, James
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Crouch, David
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dorrell, Stephen
Irving, Charles


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Jackson, Robert


Dover, Den
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jessel, Toby


Dunn, Robert
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Eggar, Tim
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Emery, Sir Peter
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Evennett, David
Key, Robert


Eyre, Sir Reginald
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
King, Rt Hon Tom


Fallon, Michael
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Farr, John
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Favell, Anthony
Knowles, Michael


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lang, Ian


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Michael


Fletcher, Alexander
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawrence, Ivan


Forman, Nigel
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forth, Eric
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Franks, Cecil
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Lightbown, David


Freeman, Roger
Lilley, Peter


Gale, Roger
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Galley, Roy
Lord, Michael


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lyell, Nicholas


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McCrea, Rev William


Glyn, Dr Alan
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Goodhart, Sir Philip
MacGregor, John


Goodlad, Alastair
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gorst, John
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Gow, Ian
Maclean, David John


Gower, Sir Raymond
Madel, David


Greenway, Harry
Maginnis, Ken


Gregory, Conal
Major, John


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Malins, Humfrey


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Malone, Gerald


Grist, Ian
Maples, John


Ground, Patrick
Marland, Paul


Grylls, Michael
Marlow, Antony


Gummer, John Selwyn
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mates, Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Maude, Hon Francis


Hanley, Jeremy
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hannam,John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Harris, David
Mellor, David


Harvey, Robert
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Moate, Roger


Hawksley, Warren
Moore, John


Hayes, J.
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hayward, Robert
Moynihan, Hon C.


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Murphy, Christopher


Heddle, John
Neale, Gerrard


Henderson, Barry
Needham, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Hickmet, Richard
Neubert, Michael


Hill, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Hind, Kenneth
Normanton, Tom


Hirst, Michael
Norris, Steven


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Oppenheim, Philip


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Osborn, Sir John


Holt, Richard
Ottaway, Richard


Hooson, Tom
Page, John (Harrow W)


Hordern, Peter
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Howard, Michael
Parris, Matthew


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)





Patten, John (Oxford)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Pawsey, James
Stokes, John


Pollock, Alexander
Stradling Thomas, J.


Porter, Barry
Sumberg, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Powley, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Raffan, Keith
Temple-Morris, Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Terlezki, Stefan


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Renton, Tim
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rhodes James, Robert
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thornton, Malcolm


Rifkind, Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Tracey, Richard


Roe, Mrs Marion
Trippier, David


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rost, Peter
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rowe, Andrew
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Viggers, Peter


Ryder, Richard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Walden, George


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wall, Sir Patrick


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Waller, Gary


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Ward, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Warren, Kenneth


Shersby, Michael
Watson, John


Silvester, Fred
Watts, John


Sims, Roger
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wheeler, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Whitfield, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Whitney, Raymond


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Speller, Tony
Wilkinson, John


Spencer, Derek
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wood, Timothy


Squire, Robin
Woodcock, Michael


Stanbrook, Ivor
Yeo, Tim


Stanley, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stern, Michael



Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Mr. Carol Mather and


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mr. Robert Boscawen.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Corbett, Robin


Alton, David
Corbyn, Jeremy


Anderson, Donald
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Craigen, J. M.


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cunningham, Dr John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dalyell, Tam


Barnett, Guy
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Barron, Kevin
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Beith, A. J.
Deakins, Eric


Bell, Stuart
Dixon, Donald


Benn, Tony
Dobson, Frank


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Dormand, Jack


Bermingham, Gerald
Dubs, Alfred


Boyes, Roland
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eadie, Alex


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Eastham, Ken


Bruce, Malcolm
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Ewing, Harry


Campbell, Ian
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Canavan, Dennis
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fisher, Mark


Cartwright, John
Flannery, Martin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Forrester, John


Clarke, Thomas
Foster, Derek


Clay, Robert
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Cohen, Harry
Freud, Clement


Coleman, Donald
Garrett, W. E.


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
George, Bruce


Conlan, Bernard
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John






Godman, Dr Norman
O'Brien, William


Golding, John
Park, George


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Parry, Robert


Hardy, Peter
Patchett, Terry


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pendry, Tom


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Pike, Peter


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Haynes, Frank
Radice, Giles


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Randall, Stuart


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Redmond, M.


Hoyle, Douglas
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Rooker, J. W.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Janner, Hon Greville
Rowlands, Ted


John, Brynmor
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Sheerman, Barry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Kennedy, Charles
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kirkwood, Archibald
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Leighton, Ronald
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Loyden, Edward
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


McCartney, Hugh
Snape, Peter


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Soley, Clive


McGuire, Michael
Straw, Jack


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McNamara, Kevin
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


McWilliam, John
Tinn, James


Madden, Max
Wainwright, R.


Marek, Dr John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wareing, Robert


Martin, Michael
Weetch, Ken


Maxton, John
White, James


Maynard, Miss Joan
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Meacher, Michael
Winnick, David


Meadowcroft, Michael
Woodall, Alec


Michie, William
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mikardo, Ian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)



Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Tellers for the Noes:


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

POSTPONEMENT OF EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 7, line 13, leave out subsection (1).

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment No. 105, in page 7, line 14, leave out ', or continue to consider. ' .
No. 106, in page 7, line 15, leave out '(whether before or'
New clause 12—Development plans—
Where consideration by the Secretary of State of any proposals for the alteration of the Greater London development plan or a structure plan for a metropolitan county has been postponed in pursuance of section 8(1) of this Act, such proposals shall be deemed to have been approved by him on the date of the coming into force of any order under section 1(2) of this Act repealing the said section 8(1).

Mr. Fraser: This is an extremely important matter of substance, not of procedure. Clause 8(1) relieves the Secretary of State of the duty to consider alterations to the

Greater London development plan or the metropolitan county structure plan which may be submitted to him. At the moment, approved structure plans are in force for the GLC and for each of the metropolitan counties. Planning authorities are expected to keep their structure plans under review. Under section 10 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, they submit alterations to their structure plan in the light of developments. The Secretary of State then holds an examination in public under section 9 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Under clause 8(1) of the Bill, the Secretary of State will no longer be required to examine such proposed alterations to structure plans. If the Bill goes through, and is followed by a further Bill along the lines of the recommendations in "Streamlining the Cities", the Government will be committing the grossest act of planning folly and irresponsibility in respect of both Greater London and the metropolitan counties.
I shall try to deal almost exclusively with the GLC area and, if he catches your eye, Mr. Armstrong, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) will deal with the metropolitan counties. The proposals in "Streamlining the Cities" are grossly irresponsible in abolishing any kind of comprehensive structure plan for one of the largest capital cities in the world. It is no exaggeration to suggest that that is what the Government are doing. Paragraph 2·5 of "Streamlining the Cities" states:
The borough and district councils already have responsibility for certain planning functions; and it is proposed that they should on abolition take over responsibility for the structure plan function at present carried out by the GLC and the MCCs.
The existing system of structure and local plans will be retained, but with differences to reflect the special circumstances of the metropolitan areas. Responsibility for both the structure and local plan function will rest with the borough and district councils. The Greater London Development Plan and the structure plans for the metropolitan counties will remain in existence for statutory purposes until such time as the borough and district councils, with the agreement of the Secretary of State for the Environment, undertake a review of the structure plans for their areas.
Thereafter, the White Paper makes it clear that the structure plan for each county — I am particularly concerned with the structure plan for the GLC—will come to an end.
That is the long-term effect. However, in the short term, the effects are just as serious. The Bill will delay any alterations in the structure plan for London. With the passage of time, alterations become almost as important as the plan itself. There have been massive changes in technology—in the way in which offices operate, for instance — the use of energy and forms of transport. Immense changes have taken place since the GLC development plan was first produced in the 1960s. That plan has become very much out of date. In reality, the delay in considering alterations is only a preliminary to the abolition of any single plan for London as a whole. This is a matter of planning irresponsibility.
The Government said that the GLC proposed that there should be further alterations to the structure plan, which seems only reasonable. After all, the plan for Greater London was prepared in the 1960s. It was submitted to the Department of the Environment in 1969, after which there was the Layfield inquiry, and as a result the plan was not approved until 1976. Therefore, 20 years have passed since the structure plan for Greater London was produced. For the Government to say that it would be a costly


extravagance to consider alterations to that structure plan is plain irresponsible. It is an arrogant contempt of London and Londoners to deny the GLC the opportunity to undertake a long-overdue review and alteration of its plan, and an even greater arrogance and contempt towards London eventually to propose any abolition of the planning structure for London as a whole unit. It passes comprehension that the Government should propose the measure.
London has a population of almost 8 million—bigger than that of many nation states. It is one of the biggest conurbations in the world. It is not merely an important conurbation, but the centre of the national railway network, the air transport system and the road transport system. It is a major port. It is a major river and drainage area. There are all the implications of the boundaries between one borough and another, and the inter-relationship of travel by rail and air. All those matters have implications for London as a total planning unit.
The matter is important not only to London but to the surrounding counties. If the sprawl of London might engulf southern England and be a threat to the countryside, London must have a total planning policy, including the reinforcement of the green belt. Yet the Government White Paper does not provide for a single town plan for London, nor does it provide even for a co-ordinating function in planning terms. In other words, planning for London will be regarded as less important than planning in a national park.
12.30 am
Other matters need to be planned throughout London as a whole. It has an acute shortage of housing, with one third of a million families on housing waiting lists, and housing needs to be treated as a totality. One of London's housing problems is that it is a mixture of ghettos and gardens. Some boroughs, such as Southwark and Lambeth, are, because of the pressure of cuts in housing programmes, becoming residual ghettoes, while other. parts of London such as Kingston, Richmond and Surbiton, are not interested in building houses for those in need or those in the lower income groups. There is a London of segments—a city with some of the richest areas in the world, and others, such as Hackney, that are the poorest and most deprived areas in the country.
The existing differences between one borough and another in housing, to give only one illustration, go to show how enormously important it is to have a strategy for London's housing, as one is needed for transport, preservation of the green belt and land use. All these considerations are thrown to one side by the Government White Paper, "Streamlining the Cities" and in particular by clause 8, which even prevents a long-overdue updating and revision of the Greater London structure plan.
The Government are proposing the Balkanisation of London into 32 separate structure plans. Although they will be co-ordinated by central Government and have some guidance from central Government, the Minister cannot deny that, with the proposition in "Streamlining the Cities", we could finish up with no total plan for London and with 32, or, including the City of London, 33 structure plans for the Greater London area. That is planning madness. There is nothing constructive about that, and there is no care for London. That is a destructive proposal,

and there is not a shred of credible argument for what is being proposed. Every opinion points to the reverse conclusion—that we need a structure plan and a strategy for London as a whole.

Mr. Chris Smith: Will my hon. Friend consider the point that the Secretary of State made to a number of London Members of Parliament who went to see him about a future plan for the whole metropolis of London? He told us that, apart from the provision of fire services for the whole of London, he saw no need for any coherent planning or strategic thinking for the capital city. Does that not reveal a gross misunderstanding of the planning needs of our capital city?

Mr. Fraser: I agree with my hon. Friend. What is planned is, in municipal terms, equivalent to the sack of Rome in 1527.
Every other reorganisation, even in planning terms, has been preceded by a commission or an inquiry in depth. After all, the present arrangements were the result of the report of the Herbert commission, which said:
It is no doubt the business of central government to hold the balance between Greater London and the rest of south-east England, as it is also the business of central government to hold the balance between south-east England and the Midlands…This task of holding the balance would not be facilitated but would be made all the more difficult if the central government were to become to all intents and purposes the planning authority, in broad terms, for Greater London.
The Government are not even proposing that. They are proposing the Balkanisation of the planning of London.
The Herbert commission went on to say:
We have no hesitation in finding as a fact that the presuppositions of the Greater London Plan"—
the Abercrombie plan of 1944—
require an early reconsideration, and that this can only be done, so far as the Review Area as a whole is concerned, by some body which has the statutory duty of examining the Review Areas as a whole and planning accordingly.
We now have a Conservative Government's reaction to those conclusions. They said:
The Royal Commission were convinced that, unless some method could be found within the framework of local government to tackle the pressing problems of Greater London, the central Government would increasingly supersede local authorities.
They thought that that would be disastrous for local government, and they were right. That is the answer to those who say that a system of local government that recognises Greater London as a unit only for some purposes is not local government at all. In the Government's opinion, it is the only way to enable Greater London to enjoy an adequate measure of responsible self-government.
The Government's reaction to the Herbert commission was:
The need to have one plan for the whole of Greater London was the point on which there was the most complete agreement among the authorities in their comments on the Commission's report. The alternative proposals put forward by the councils envisaged a master plan prepared by a joint planning board—a set of general principles, within the framework of which the present planning authorities would prepare their own development plans. The Government do not believe that this scheme would prove effective.
Any consideration by a Royal Commission or by Government has reached the conclusion that London must have a comprehensive single structure plan dealing not with detailed matters, but with the broad strategic issues


for London. Within that context, each borough should produce its local plan. There is no credible evidence that any other system will serve London well.
I wish to conclude by citing two examples from my constituency. One of them I could take from the GLC publication about "Streamlining the Cities". There are a number of pseudonyms on page 44 about the pedestrianisation scheme. It shows an aerial view of "Westmole hill"—which is in my constituency, and the London borough of Bromley.
In a corner of my constituency there is an area that needs careful planning. Crystal Palace is an area of both Greater London and national importance. It has a national sports centre. It has been a centre of national importance for well over 100 years. It was moved there from Hyde park. There are difficult planning problems in getting the area to work as a whole. On one side there is Lewisham borough council, next to it is Southwark borough council, then Bromley borough council, Croydon borough council and Lambeth borough council. Five London boroughs meet at one point in my constituency. The idea that the five separate London boroughs will each have a separate structure plan for an area of London of national importance is absolutely ludicrous. I give that one example from my constituency. It is illustrated in a different form in the GLC publication. Even given the present proposals, what is planned in "Streamlining the Cities" is anarchy.
In a residential road in my constituency there is a waste transfer station. They are not popular in any borough in any part of London. If each London borough had a structure plan for waste transfer stations—it is much the same for other anti-social activities—it would want to push such activities on to the doorstep of its neighbours, with adverse consequences for residents. Waste transfer stations are a strategic resource for London as a whole. It is only a body such as the GLC—a planning authority for the whole of the county—that can take a sensible overview about the needs of the metropolis for such an operation.
Those are two examples from my own constituency. If I wished to prolong the debate, I could give 20 more examples of the way in which the Government's proposals will create anarchy and cause a serious deterioration of the amenities of our capital city. Hon. Members will early be able to supplement my examples. I hope that after this debate on planning—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) will talk about planning in the metropolitan counties—the Government will see the error of their ways.
The Government are doing a gross disservice not just to the people of London but to Britain's whole reputation. London is an academic centre, an artistic centre and a shopping centre, as well as a centre of commerce. All those matters need to be co-ordinated in planning terms. For instance, London is a tourist centre. One has to consider how tourists are to be accommodated not just in Oxford street and the West End but in the whole of the capital. Again, London is a conference centre. The Government are building a conference centre over the road. That will have implications for the whole city.
It is gross irresponsibility to abolish the planning strategy for our capital city and in the meantime not to permit the GLC to bring a 20-year-old plan up to date. I hope that both sides of the House will see the sense of our proposals and will support the amendments.

Mr. Wareing: More than most of the other clauses, clause 8 makes clear the pre-emptive nature of the Bill. We should ask ourselves what the purpose of the Secretary of State can be in trying to prevent the updating of development plans.
Merseyside county council recently began consultations with its five district councils as part of its review of the Merseyside structure plan. The existing plan was approved by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) in 1980, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment. As Secretary of State, he told a Conservative party conference that the way to tackle the problems of areas such as Merseyside was to pour more public investment into them.
In the right hon. Gentleman's letter of approval, he stressed the importance of a review after five years. His letter mentioned the vital importance of making the best use of public resources, for example, for housing renovation and urban regeneration. The review is particularly needed to ensure that housing land is made available without eating into the green belt and other environmentally valuable areas. In many of our conurbations, the preservation of the green belt is a highly desirable objective. There is much dereliction and waste of land in such areas.
We are trying to preserve our heritage. We have a rich heritage on Merseyside, and we are trying to conserve and protect it. The district councils have expressed their concern about their ability to protect such areas in the absence of an up-to-date structure plan. Ministers have pressed local authorities, as a matter of priority, to incorporate in their plans criteria for making housing land available, to ensure an adequate land supply. If the structure plan review is delayed, the Secretary of State may be compelled to permit on appeal planning applications which he would have turned down had there been an up-to-date strategic planning framework.
The degeneration into ad hoc decision making will be wasteful of Government time and of the community's resources. The building industry, for example, will be endangered if major building programmes are delayed because land allocations for development have not been updated. The number of planning applications that depart from the development plan is bound to increase because of the age of the existing structure plan. That will result in more planning appeals, which means more time being devoted by local planning authorities and the Government to inquiries and more cost to ratepayers and taxpayers.
12.45 am
One of our main criticisms is that all of clause 8 is pre-emptive and assumes that Parliament will pass the abolition Bill. We realise that Conservative Members can be regarded only as Lobby fodder—few of them have attended debates on the Bill. Moreover, there are plenty of Tory peers who creep out of the woodwork whenever the Government crack the whip, although some of them have difficulty finding their way to Westminster. I understand that some of the peers who voted for the rate-capping Bill had to ask directions to Westminster when they arrived in London. I am sure that they can be dragged out again. There are, however, some hon. Members and noble Members of another place who will no doubt show their honour by defending democracy by voting against the Bill.
It is interesting that clause 8, the most pre-emptive of all, did not gain the support of 39 Conservative Members on Second Reading. It is also interesting that the proposal, in clause 8, to suspend the local government boundary commission's activities was criticised by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) who said:
If the main bill gets through, there is no doubt in many experts' minds that there must then be a revision of the boundaries to make some of the boroughs viable under the new system."-[Official Report, 11 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 428.]
He was correct. The local government boundary commission should be doing its work now. The five district councils on Merseyside, including Tory-controlled Sefton and Wirral, are to take on responsibility for the police, fire, traffic management, arts and culture and waste disposal.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) mentioned waste disposal, as we on Merseyside have just the same problems as he outlined. There is enough trouble about where there should be a waste disposal site with the cohesive force of Merseyside county council. Heaven know what will happen when the Tories in Sefton and in Wirral have to dispose of their own rubbish, as plenty comes from that party in those places.
The Bill specifically debars the boundary commission from doing the job that it should be doing. The Secretary of State has been noticeably absent from our discussions on clauses 7 and 8. I have a question for him, and I am sure that his parliamentary private secretary, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), would love to know the answer. Just what will happen to the boundaries of Sefton and Knowsley as a result of the Bill? I suspect that the Tory majority in Sefton will be at risk. It will almost certainly inherit parts of the Knowsley district, and—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that the issue of boundaries is covered by the next group of amendments. The amendments under debate are concerned with the structure and development plans.

Mr. Wareing: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Armstrong. I shall endeavour to catch your eye when those amendments are debated, but I shall try not to repeat everything that I have said so far. However, it is worth pointing out in relation to the structure plan that I received a letter only yesterday from the Merseyside Churches' Ecumenical Council. It clearly supports the maintenance of Merseyside as a county council. That is important, because if strategic planning is to mean anything in Merseyside, there must be a coherent plan for the entire area. It is not something that can be left to five separate districts.
Indeed, I am sure that four of the districts do not want the problem of taking over what is rightly the job of a body that can represent the entire area of Merseyside. The Merseyside Churches' Ecumenical Council told me in that letter that at a full council meeting attended by the Bishop of Liverpool and other church leaders, and chaired by the Archbishop of Liverpool, two speakers were heard. One was in favour of the Government's proposals and the other was against them. Those involved voted on whether the council was in favour of the Government's White Paper. Two were in favour of it and 14 were against, with five

abstentions. I have been asked by the council to note its concern and to use my influence to resist the White Paper's proposals.
The letter points out the churches' concern that the county structures, which have brought a unity of decision making and provision for the appropriate areas of responsibility, are to be abolished. The council then mentions the joint boards and committees. It is referring to the fact that Merseyside is an entity, or a sub-region. The river Mersey is not a barrier between the people who live on north and south Merseyside, but a spinal cord that unites the entire area. As I have said before, it is not a coincidence that Merseysiders who may never have studied local government structures or composition can come together at a football match and shout the name of Merseyside. Merseyside means something to people like me who were born and bred in that area.
As Londoners are a cohesive unit, so is this true of Merseyside. Merseysiders are proud of the fact. If there is to be proper planning of roads and of the arts—we are very proud of our cultural heritage on Merseyside—if there is to be a police force that is concerned with community policing, which is accountable to a body that is representative of the people of the area, and if the fire service is to work in the interests of the people of Merseyside, it must be done by the people of Merseyside, who understand the problems. Civil servants drafted in to the joint board and advised by people who are not primarily interested in that function cannot do the job.
How many councillors who are appointed to bodies at present attend their meetings? We are always complaining, no matter to which party we belong, that people do not attend meetings. If there is to be a statutory plan for Merseyside, it must be kept up to date. Here the Government are taking powers to say that the work on the strategy plan must finish. There is no guarantee in the clause that, whether the Bill is passed, strategic planning will be taken up by democratically elected authorities, or even by elected borough or district councils.
On Merseyside, along with our friends in London, and in the other major conurbations, we all—

Ms. Clare Short: And in the west midlands.

Mr. Wareing: I must placate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). Of course, that is true, but nowhere in this country outside London is there a togetherness as there is in Merseyside. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Crosby with us again. He is not wearing his Merseyside county council tie that he wore on Second Reading. I bet he did not pay for that; I bet the Merseyside ratepayers paid for it. He will agree with me that the people of Merseyside belong to a sub-region in the north-west of England, and that they wish for proper democratic representation in the drawing up of strategic plans.

Mr. John Cartwright: I support strongly these amendments because of the impact that clause 8 might have on planning in London. The intention of clause 8 is clear: it is to abort the efforts of the Greater London council, the London boroughs and other statutory bodies to update the existing Greater London development plan. Most hon. Members who understand the problems of London must realise that the plan desperately needs updating. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser)


was right to remind us that it is now nearly 20 years old. It was prepared in the early 1960s and submitted in 1969. It was the subject of a celebrated public inquiry—the Layfield inquiry — into the merits of the motorway network and, finally, after amendment, it was approved by the Secretary of State in 1976.
Most people will accept that there have been considerable changes even since 1976 and many of the elements of the plan go back very much further. Therefore, I believe that there would be general support for the proposition that a plan as important as the structure plan for Greater London should be kept up to date.
1 am
Life has clearly changed considerably in relation to a number of the issues dealt with in the plan. Unemployment is just one example. There was a time in the 1960s and early 1970s when parts of inner London still nurtured hopes of holding on to manufacturing industry or even of attracting it back. Many of us now feel that that is perhaps a forlorn hope and that we may have to rethink the original idea and consider the prospects for service industries. I do not say that that is a final solution, but issues of that kind need to be debated against the background of a structure plan for Greater London.
Not only central London but many outer areas rely heavily on office employment, but with the growth of new technologies there are now doubts about whether that concentration of workers in offices will be anything like so necessary in the future as it was in the past. Some planners are already suggesting that we may have to face the problem of redundant office blocks and what to do with them. A living, developing structure plan will have to tackle that problem, too.
As the hon. Member for Norwood fairly mentioned, there is also the problem of housing. Again, the problems of the 1980s and 1990s may not necessarily be the same as those of the 1960s and 1970s. There is the continuing problem of physical deterioration of the housing stock. The 1979 Greater London housing condition survey showed that a quarter of London's housing stock was unfit, lacked modern amenities or needed extensive repairs. There is also the comparatively new problem of hard-to-let housing units in the public sector. About 100,000 units in inner London are already officially described in that way. There is the growing problem of homelessness, which existed in the 1960s and is with us again very strongly in the 1980s. In housing there are new problems and accentuations of previous problems and the development plan clearly needs updating to tackle those problems.
A factor which strongly affected the Greater London development plan was retailing, a sector in which there have been massive changes since the plan was approved. The comparative decline in popularity of traditional town centre shopping and the continuing decline of the small corner shop have been accompanied by a massive growth in support for hypermarkets, superstores, regional shopping centres and modern mass retailing of that kind. Those changes have all kinds of planning implications for transport, housing, roads, and so on, and clearly need to be taken into account in updating the plan.
On transport, there have been all the problems of energy costs since the development plan was approved. There is also the prospect of early completion of the M25, which is expected to alter various private and commercial vehicle routes through Greater London and especially

through central London. The impact of the M25 will be felt not just on transport but on the location of industry and services generally. Traffic congestion in central areas is again becoming a major problem. The problems and opportunities presented by the Thames, river transport, and so on, are all issues that the development plan should tackle as new problems and opportunities facing Londoners. There is a stronger interest in urban environmental problems in the 1980s than there was when the plan was first drafted. They attract more public attention now than they did in the 1960s and 1970s, and should be a major element of an updated plan.
There is the problem of leisure, some of which is welcome and some forced on people who must enjoy it. An up-to-date plan for Greater London should tackle the problem of how to provide leisure opportunities for Londoners. On these and many issues it is essential that we have a Greater London development plan which keeps pace with change in Greater London and changing problems and opportunities.
The GLC did a great deal of work on updating the original Greater London development plan. The draft alterations, for example, run to 128 pages of proposals, and there are about 200 revised or new policies. I do not claim to support every one, but they raise issues which Londoners should be debating when they consider London's future.
I am puzzled to know why the Government believe that all the work to produce those draft alterations should be torn up and thrown away. It is not only the work of the GLC. Many individual London boroughs contributed to it. About 350 observations were submitted to the GLC's draft alterations for consultation. Thirty-one of the 32 London boroughs made observations about the draft alterations.
The matter even extends beyond the confines of Greater London. The London and South East Regional Planning Conference offered considerable support for the broad aims of the strategy for London. That body brings together the views of the shire counties and the county district councils outside Greater London. Through the conference they have been pressing for an updated plan for London. Obviously, what happens in London affects the policies in areas surrounding London. The conference concluded:
It is essential to effective regional planning that policies for London should be reviewed and brought up-to-date and Conference finds it particularly helpful, at a time when it is seeking the revision and updating of regional strategic guidance, to have before it the Council's proposals for amending the GLDP.
That reaction is not from wicked Labour-controlled authorities or the dreadful GLC, but from areas outside the GLC area, which welcome what has been done to update the GLDP.
The hon. Member for Norwood reminded us that we cannot consider the proposal in isolation from the Government's suggestions "Streamlining the Cities" as a planning arrangement for Greater London. It is a great shame that, if the Government have their way, we shall for the first time since the Abercrombie county of London plan of 1943 have no overall Greater London plan and no overall strategic planning body. That will be a disaster. I am comforted that that view is also shared by solid, sober business men in London.
The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry had some tough things to say about the Government's proposals. It said that it was convinced that


a single strategic plan is necessary for an area as complex as London.
It continued by saying that it did not believe that
an advisory planning commission with no formal power engaged in no doubt lengthy and contradictory consultations with the local authorities in London, other planning authorities in the South-East and other interested bodies is likely to produce a clear and coherent framework within which the private sector can contribute effectively to the regeneration of London.
Like others who have studied the problem, I do not see how the boroughs can be left to themselves to produce a coherent plan for the whole of London. They cannot have an overall view. They are not in business to have an overall view. Their purpose is to look after the interests of their boroughs. Boroughs cannot decide what is right for areas outside their boroughs. What seems to be right to them may not be right for Greater London.
I thought that the matter was well put by the Town and Country Planning Association in its comments on "Streamlining the Cities". It said:
It is in relation to strategic planning that the metropolitan districts and the London boroughs will find it impossible to take on a strategic role which requires them to consider interests and problems beyond their own boundaries. This is not a matter of professional capability but of political reality. By their very nature the districts and boroughs will not be able to speak for a whole metropolitan area individually. In many cases they do not themselves relate to any recognisable social, geographical or economic catchment area but are mostly arbitrary slices of urban geography with boundaries that were drawn up on the basis of securing authorities of a certain size rather than socio-economic cohesion. Thus, any real co-ordination across boundaries between areas with common problems must of necessity be at a higher political level if positive decisions are to be reached.
The Government may well dismiss the TCPA members as a bunch of interested planners. The view of many of us of the proposal to leave the London boroughs to themselves to produce a patchwork quilt of structure plans which do not fit together as a cohesive whole is supported by the CBI. Its reaction was:
The majority of our members are not convinced that the inter-authority co-operation needed both on the policy side and in the sharing of specialist resources can be satisfactorily achieved by the arrangements the Government propose. We do not believe that voluntary co-operation would in many cases be forthcoming and the means of encouraging such co-operation through guidance from the Secretary of State (himself advised by an appointed Planning Commission and standing conferences of district planning authorities) and the ultimate sanction of calling in structure plans will be time consuming and may cause costly delays to business.
Business men reject the Government's approach.
What we shall obtain from the Government's proposals for a planning structure for London and what is proposed in clause 8 is a frozen London with an out-of-date plan. It will have a planning system that is effectively hamstrung and prevented from developing a strategic view of the, important problems that London faces.
It has been accepted for generations that London needs an overall planning approach to its problems. The Government's proposals are a recipe for disaster. I hope that even at this late stage the Committee will reject the Government's proposals by supporting the amendments.

Mr. Hardy: I shall give relatively brief support to the amendments largely because I believe that the Minister needs to offer an explanation to the Committee and local government and I should not wish to speak for so long that I watched him enter an even more intense state of exhaustion so that he could not offer that explanation.
The Minister may feel that the Government have adequately explained clause 8 where it deals with structure plans. He may be aware that local government is not satisfied by the meagre explanation and defence which has been offered. I do not believe than any was offered on Second Reading and I have not developed such a familiarity with the Committee's records that I have noticed any adequacy in the explanations given there.
An explanation is necessary, because the Secretary of State appears to be taking somewhat premature powers which are perhaps rather more draconian than other parts of this unpleasant Bill.
London Members can speak for London. I want to refer merely to the metropolitan counties. Is the Minister saying that the metropolitan counties, where they have virtually completed their structure plans, should be prevented from doing so? I hope he can offer reassurance. That is necessary for one reason above all. The Minister knows London very well, but he may not be so familiar with the metropolitan counties. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) demonstrated the economic and social needs that exist on Merseyside. There are similar needs in other metropolitan counties. Economically they are perhaps the most needy areas in the country. We should be very careful indeed before we inflict any disadvantage on them.
1.15 am
In south Yorkshire there has been a dedicated endeavour on the part of the staff of the county council to improve the environment. If the Minister asks any of the bodies with which his Department is in contact they will testify that, whatever disagreements there may be about the political flavour of south Yorkshire county council, it is widely recognised as setting an example to the rest of the country in its concern for the enhancement of the environment. That could be imperilled if the Government go ahead with their proposals on plans.
The Government's forward plans for public spending envisage a severe reduction in the amount of money which local government may spend. If there are to be savage economies, the new district councils will have to do a considerable amount to determine priorities and to work out which of the many things that need to be done should be done. It is essential that in their new role the authorities should have some understanding of the priorities which the structure plans of the metropolitan counties can provide.
I do not think that it is necessary for the Minister to take action so far in advance of reality. The Minister may feel that the backwoodsmen who occasionally attend another place will support the Government loyally through thick and thin, but many Members of another place may take the view that this is an unnecessary step and that the Government have not explained or defended it adequately. With the predominance of south country interests which has been demonstrated clearly by the attendance on the Government Benches during this debate, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that the hard-hit areas covered by the metropolitan counties do not suffer greater disservice.

Mr. Tom Cox: Hon. Members who have spoken so far have clearly shown how crucial the clause is. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) referred to its importance for London. As London Members, we believe that we must have a Greater London development plan. The plan began some 20 years ago; the


years and years of consultation show how vital it is to have an overall plan for the capital city of the country. Indeed, it was the first of the structure plans in England and, as has already been mentioned, it was approved by the Secretary of State as long ago as 1976.
Those who are involved in politics in London agree that it is time for the plan to be updated. We need to have it updated because of the changes that have taken place in London over the years. There have been certain key issues in London and other cities. There has been an enormous population movement in London, which was reflected clearly prior to the general election when London lost many parliamentary seats because of the decrease in its population. There has been a loss of employment in every London borough and overall there have been massive job losses. The inner London boroughs have suffered even more than the outer boroughs. There have been ever-increasing social problems. London's population is sadly becoming an aging one. We had the sad experience of disturbances in some inner London areas two or three years ago.
If we are to see any meaningful progress in dealing with the problems in London, there must be a strategic plan and a system of government that allows a central authority, in consultation with the boroughs, to devise plans and proposals that will start to give Londoners hope. There are 32 independent local authorities in London and there are similar problems in many of the boroughs, but there are real differences between the issues in London and those in the outer boroughs.
It is a credit to the GLC that in 1981 it decided that it was time for a review of the planning policies for London. Each London borough was consulted and asked for its views on the changes that were needed within its area. There was a great deal of consultation in the borough in my constituency. There were public meetings and approaches were made to various organisations to seek their comments. It became clear from the observations that by groups and individuals at public meetings that there was a need for a review and updating of the existing plan.
The Minister should be reminded that, while that process of consultation was taking place, there was consultation with officials at the Department of the Environment. It is important to set out the background to the consultation, because I think that London Members cannot be criticised for thinking that they have been cheated by the Department. In February 1983 the Department assured the GLC's officials that the necessary amending regulations to bring into force the procedural provisions that would be needed for the structural changes would be introduced as the necessary permission would be given. The general election stopped that promise being put into effect.
The GLC thought that, once the election had ended, it would be able to return to the Department for the necessary approval to be given. It was not until August 1983 that the GLC was informed that the matter had been reviewed and that Ministers had decided that to give the GLC the statutory powers to amend the Greater London development plan would be inappropriate in the circumstances of the time. I think that we are entitled to hear from the Minister some firm details as to why, despite all the promises that were given by the Department prior to the election, the GLC was told that it could not have the approval that it had sought in the most democratic way by the fullest consultation with the 32 London boroughs.
Such was the disgust felt by the GLC that it took the Department of the Environment to court. The court hearing took place last November. The case was heard before Mr. Justice Hodgson, who found in favour of the GLC and was highly critical of the actions of the Secretary of State in refusing to give the GLC approval to update its plan. Not only was Mr. Justice Hodgson highly critical of the actions of the Department of the Environment, but he awarded the GLC costs for the action that it brought. That speaks volumes for the view of the judiciary of the country on the actions of the Department of the Environment. As many of my hon. Friends have said, threaded through the Bill is the denial of the rights of the people of London to decide what kind of local government they wish to see.
The issue of land use arises under the clause, and the strategic plan for London. In south London, as, I am sure, in other boroughs, the problem of housing arises week after week. Thousands of people are on the housing list with virtually no hope of getting any help from the council. If help is to be given to people who live in Wandsworth, or in any other part of inner or outer London, there must be an overall plan for the use of land. Parliament has had debates for many years on the lack of willingness of outer London boroughs, which do not face the same housing problems that inner London boroughs face to offer assistance. If there is an overall plan, there is some hope that sympathetic outer London authorities will be prepared to offer help by way of land that may be unused in their own boroughs.
Unemployment is a consideration in many boroughs. I have listened to many hon. Members at Question Time referring to the unemployment that exists in their regions. It cannot be disputed that the figures are tragic in many areas of the country, but nowhere in the country has the overall unemployment figures that apply in London. There are over 15,000 unemployed people in the borough that I represent. The unemployment problem in London is enormous. We must give the GLC the authority that it is seeking, to create employment and to work with boroughs in the development of industries that will offer employment. The GLC has been in the forefront of trying to give hope to inner-city areas with high rates of unemployment. The existence of the Greater London development plan has made that possible.
1.30 am
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the GLC was consulting as part of the process of updating that plan, over 350 observations were sent in, showing the interest among London organisations in the issues involved. For example, the London and south-eastern regional planning conference welcomed the actions of the GLC.
Like other hon. Members, I have received much information on the issues that we are discussing. The British Roads Federation, an organisation not particularly sympathetic to the Labour party or the GLC, in a letter which, I gather, has been sent to many hon. Members, illustrating that body's concern about clause 8, said:
We express concern at the absence of an authority with London-wide strategic planning powers, which we believe to be the fundamental element of any effective London-wide transport policy. We hope that very careful attention will be given to the constructive proposals that we have incorporated in cur responses, without which further delays will mean much-needed road improvements will not take place, they will cost more and will lead to less efficient traffic management.


Hon. Members, whether they come from London or elsewhere, will agree that much needs to be done about the capital's traffic problems. That is why that federation believes that the GLC's plans are of great importance.
Cardinal Hume said:
The existence of a central elected body has enabled services to be provided for a variety of groups whose needs could be neglected by individual boroughs. We cite, for example, not only the single homeless but other groups such as alcoholics and drug addicts.
Sadly, many boroughs, in London and elsewhere, close their eyes to the needs of those people. But the plans that the GLC have made in co-operation with interested boroughs have brought help to many such people. That is yet another reason for the existence of the Greater London plan.
The Government's attitude to many matters is to destroy or privatise. The Department of the Environment has let down many people. Before the last election, the Department clearly showed that the GLC's proposals would be approved. I hope that many Conservative Members will show that they are really concerned about the issues affecting their constituents by going into the right Lobby and revealing that their foremost considerations are for the people of London and the London that we hope to build in the coming years.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I shall be brief because the comments of my hon. Friends have mirrored the position in Greater Manchester. Greater Mancurians—I use that rather unusual term — are puzzled, because, although it is generally accepted that the overall tenor of the Bill and the legislation that is to follow reflect an act of gross political spite, almost no one understands why it is necessary to have powers in clause 8 affecting the structure plan.
It is generally agreed that the structure plan has been useful to Greater Manchester. The Secretary of State cannot argue that there could be an attempt by Greater Manchester or any of the other authorities to sabotage the structure plan during the final years of its operation, simply because he has the residual power to decide whether to accept that plan. It is important for areas such as Greater Manchester to have a cohesive plan for matters such as land use, especially housing, transportation and the green belt, which is important in highly built-up areas of conurbation. All that will be stripped away in this clause.
The Greater Manchester council structure plan came into operation in 1981, and is due to expire in 1986. Already a considerable amount of work has been done to revise that plan, yet it appears that the Secretary of State wishes to throw away all that work. That is an act not just of folly, but almost of sabotage, which will be resented by the people in the area.
At the very best, with the re-creation of the joint boards, there will be a minimal attempt at co-ordination. Basically, however, there will be a lack of co-ordination because the representatives on the joint boards will act for the districts and, by definition, will oppose each other. Conflict will automatically be built into the system.
The triumph over the years of the GMC and other bodies is that they have taken a Greater Manchester view of matters and have sorted out problems on that level. I can illustrate that point in the same way as my hon. Friend the

Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) did in relation to Crystal Palace. My constituency and the adjoining constituencies face the problem of the dereliction of the former Manchester and Salford docks. It is only because the Greater Manchester council put its effort into planning and co-ordination that there are now proposals to use that area as, for example, a leisure centre. It is certain that if such matters were left to the districts those plans would be impossible and a grossly derelict space would be left in the middle of an area that badly needs the type of improvement about which the GMC is talking.
With regard to road planning, because of the massive cuts in capital finance from the Government to the GMC, there is already a need to revise the structure plan simply because we need a new dimension in the structure plan to avoid the problem of planning blight caused by highways that were once planned not being built. We can avoid that only by altering the structure plan.
For all those reasons, I want to add my voice to that of my hon. Friends, and to make the case that this aspect of clause 8(1) to abolish structure plans, in effect, has no useful role for conurbations, which need conurbation planning. We will not have that planning with what is proposed. It will be a tragedy, not just for London, with its special and important problems, but for all the metropolitan areas, which have their own unique problems and need to balance the richer resources on the perimeter with the poorer areas of the inner city. It will be disastrous if the Minister does not accept the logic of the amendment.

Mr. Tony Banks: Earlier this morning, we discussed hon. Members such as myself who suggested that bad laws should be disobeyed and defied. I stand by what I said. Much that the Government are doing now I would be more than ready to defy and disobey, and I would encourage others to do likewise. In the event of my doing so, I will be faced with the necessary consequences of my action, but the clause is interesting because the Secretary of State himself has been defying the law; he has been breaking the law, but because the Secretary of State is the Secretary of State, with great power, he does not have to worry about the possibility of going to gaol. All that he does is put forward a piece of legislation that changes the law to his advantage.
The law that we are discussing is the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which the Secretary of State wilfully ignored. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) put his finger on it — he was taken to court himself. Therefore, we have clause 8, which is all about getting the Secretary of State off the hook that he is now on.
There has been much discussion of the Greater London development plan and the fact that it is 20 years old. It needs revising. It must be brought up to date. It reflects assumptions and expectations about, for example, population changes, the economy and employment that are based on research studies undertaken not before the 1981 census, but before the 1971 census results were available, and before the consequences of the mid-1970s oil crisis were apparent. The plan that we are operating under in London takes no account of the change in population expectations since then, of the prolonged economic recession, exacerbated by Government economic policies, and its impact on employment in London, of the changes in the cost and availability of energy, of major social changes, of the growing emphasis on community needs


and community structure, of recent inner city initiatives, of the new emphasis on the need to eliminate disadvantage experienced by ethnic minorities, women, the disabled, the elderly and other groups, and, of course, of the increased concern in London with environmental and ecological matters, and of the accelerating effects of new technology on our capital city.
Therefore, from being the first area with a structure plan, London now has a plan that is least up to date, and many later structure plans for other areas have been subsequently reviewed, some more than once. Of all areas, it is probably London that now most needs an up-to-date plan because the plan is the framework that guides the boroughs in the preparation of local plans for their areas, which is what the legislation is offering for the future. About half of London has yet to be covered by local plans, and the Greater London development plan guides other public and private agencies in drawing up their own local plans. Together with borough plans, it provides the main basis for some 40,000 planning applications in London each year.
The Labour GLC decided in 1981, rightly, that we wanted to revise planning policies for London. In March 1982, the council decided in principle upon a selective alteration of the Greater London development plan.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting said, a great deal of consultation took place. There was a great deal of discussion with groups in London and the boroughs on the need to alter the Greater London development plan. All along, the GLC was given to believe that this was in order and that they should go ahead and prepare a new plan and submit it to the Department of the Environment. It was on this basis that the GLC proceeded.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting also said, it was clear that the Secretary of State was dragging his feet after the general election. Therefore, the GLC had to go to court to point out that the Secretary of State was clearly in breach of his statutory duty. What is the difference between the Secretary of State being in breach of his statutory duty as a resonable Minister who should discharge such duties, and a Member of Parliament who decides to defy a law? The difference is that the Secretary of State can then change the law to suit himself. Justice Hodgson was critical of what the Secretary of State had done, and the GLC got the judgment in its favour, and costs.
1.45 am
The judgment is a valid one to repeat because it referred to the supremacy of Parliament. This is something with which Conservative Members are no longer concerned. All that they have is the arrogance of the great majority, which means that they can ride roughshod over Parliament, because Parliament is more than this Chamber. Until Parliament amends or repeals the Town and Country Planning Act, it remains the will of Parliament, and therefore even great Secretaries of State are supposed to discharge their responsibilities under that Act. The Secretary of State knew what his responsibilities were, and he systematically and cynically dodged them.
We now want to bring the Greater London plan up to modern-day requirements. In London, we are looking for a Greater London development plan that will remain the statutory plan for London well into the 1990s. The updating process is well advanced and what has so far been

achieved is material consideration in future planning decisions for the individual structure plans for the boroughs that the Government seemed so keen on.
I ask the Minister four questions, to which I should like the answers in the summing-up. What will be the benefits to anybody of delaying approval for an up-to-date plan for London? What is wasteful in having a statutory plan that is up to date? Why is it an extravagance—as Ministers have been claiming—to have an approved statutory plan by 1986 rather than waiting for non-statutory guidance to start to be prepared in 1986? What is the waste of resources in completing the job that the council has a duty to carry out and in which it has, until recently, received encouragement from the Department of the Environment, and why should it start again?
Even if the proposals to abolish the GLC were to be enacted, there would be a considerable advantage to the Secretary of State and all concerned with planning in London in having a last opportunity to consider, within a statutory context, a strategic plan for London as a whole. Far from being a wasteful extravagance, the completion of the remaining stages of the statutory alteration process would provide Londoners with their last opportunity to participate in a full-scale public debate on the future of their city as a whole.
The GLC draft proposals for the alteration of the Greater London development plan are already a material planning consideration to which regard is being paid in the exercise of statutory planning functions. They represent the best current thinking on strategic planning issues. Their value as such will be further enhanced when they have been revised in the light of the views and representations of the public and other interested persons. It is apparent that the Secretary of State does not believe that it is possible to complete the apparently simple process from submission to approval between July 1984 and April 1986. Frankly, that is hard to understand, especially when the Government are claiming that the dismantlement of the GLC and the six metropolitan counties, and their replacement by a plethora of bodies — including the proposal for a new unitary system development plan — can be completed in the same period.
The Secretary of State knows that the new shortened procedure for consideration of modification of the GLC development plan will not involve us in the long-drawn-out process that we had with the original GLC development plan. Most of the objections in the 270-days hearing were about road proposals. There are none in the modified plan. Within the foreshortened period of consultation, a revised GLDP can be provided.
When the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Marshall inquiry in 1979, he appeared to be of the opinion that we needed a strategic plan. In a letter that he sent to the Marshall inquiry, he said:
Local planning was often frustrated because we had to operate under a regional plan for which no authority was really suitable. There was a great need for proper strategic planning that existed only on paper…. It was essential to bring strategic planning and transport under the same control…. I therefore believe that we have got progressively to return to the concept of the GLC as a strategic authority. The GLC remains responsible for London Transport and its planning should be progressively integrated with its strategic land use planning".
That is what the Secretary of State said in 1979.
The Secretary of State is now trying to dismantle the GLC and to get himself off the hook that he was on when


he defied the 1971 Act. He was breaking the law, so he changes the law. It follows on from the philosophy of the Government. If one gets in the way of the Government, they put in the boot. If they do not like someone, they eliminate him.
There is a perfectly good case to be made by Opposition Members for a revised GLC development plan. I want the Minister to direct himself to those questions and to tell us why that should not be done.

Dr. David Clark: If before the debate the Minister had any doubts about the unpopularity of the clause, not many of those doubes can now remain. It is no secret that the Opposition find in the Bill much that is unpleasant. But the clause is not only unpleasant; it is important because it can lastingly damage many of the conurbations and Greater London.
We have had a tour around the conurbations during the debate. Hon. Members all argue the same thesis—they plead with the Government to see some sense on this issue. It is not an issue of high political principle in the theological sense—it is one of practical planning that affects the standard of life of the ordinary people.
We claim that clause 8(1) should not be part of the Bill because it is an interim provisions Bill. The subsection is by no means an interim measure. If the Bill becomes law, the Secretary of State is no longer obliged to consider the structure plan reviews. They can be repealed by an order of the Secretary of State, but an appeal is not contingent upon, or automatic should the main Bill proposing abolition fall. In that sense, clause 8 is unlike any of the other clauses. It is not an interim provision.
We have heard cogent arguments from Merseyside, the west midlands, various parts of London including Newham, south Yorkshire and Manchester. The message was the same in every case. Even at this late hour—in every sense—we ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to listen carefully to our argument and to concede that we may have a strong case. The clause would cause unwarranted delay to the review of the strategic planning framework within the metropolitan counties and the GLC. Even is the main legislation is passed, structure plan reviews all have to wait until the district councils have sorted themselves out. The delay would be damaging and unnecessary and would add to the unemployment and the misery in the metropolitan districts and the Greater London area.
It is difficult for us to understand why the Secretary of State is fearful of letting structure plan reviews go ahead, given that he has final control over the contents of such plans and that there is therefore no possibility of reckless behaviour on the part of the authorities. That was the Secretary of State's argument on an earlier part of the Bill.
My hon. Friends have given examples from their own regions of why it is necessary to have an ongoing review of the structure plans, which is what these amendments would provide for. I should like to draw attention to a couple of examples from Tyne and Wear, part of which I represent. I should like to explain to the Minister the difficulties that we will face if the clause is not amended, and show him why he should concede this point.
There is the Nissan argeement. Nissan has been attracted to Sunderland, a metropolitan district of Tyne and Wear. Nissan came to the area largely because the five

district councils, under the aegis of the county council, were able to put together a deal involving green belt land, industrial land, communications and transport by road, rail, sea and river.
It is interesting that in discussing the structure plans for Merseyside, London and Manchester—where there is the ship canal—reference has always been made to the rivers. Rivers and ports have to be treated at a regional structural level. In many cases, ports and port facilities would be lost.
Another example is of a great success in Tyne and Wear. No hon. Member would challenge the importance of the metro transport system on Tyneside. It is a fine example of an integrated transport system. People from all over the world come to see it. When Tyne and Wear put forward our structure plan in 1979–80 we suggested an extension to the metro scheme. At that time the Secretary of State rejected the idea. A great deal of work has been undertaken by Tyne and Wear in drawing up a revision of the structure plan to extend the metro to Newcastle airport, to Tyne dock in my constituency—where much of the work connected with the export of Nissan cars will presumably take place—and down to Sunderland, the only district in Tyne and Wear that does not benefit from the metro. That would greatly help Nissan.
If clause 8 is passed unamended, where will Tyne and Wear stand as regards the metro and the amendments needed to the first structure plan? They are vital to the industrial development of the area. I have given just one example and hon. Members from other conurbations have given similar ones.
The Minister should concede the point. The logic of our case is impeccable. The Minister has nothing to lose because he has the final say. For sanity and good planning, it does not make sense to put the brake on or to stop planning and then get it going again later. We are urging a continuation of planning so that we can have better planning and planning on a conurbation level. I hope that the Minister will accept this group of amendments.

2 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): Perhaps I might deal first with the final point made by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), which was also made by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), about existing structure plans if alterations are suggested by the metropolitan councils. No alterations to those plans are with my Department, nor do we know whether any alterations will be submitted. Clause 8(1) does not prevent the Secretary of State from agreeing to amendments if they are advanced. The crucial point is the timing of the submission. That is what the Secretary of State will have in mind when considering whether to proceed with the alteration or to invoke clause 8(1). I shall return to that point to shed some light on why we think that we need clause 8(1) to prevent the planning departments from misusing resources.
I find this an interesting debate. I suspect that I am the only person who has read all of the transcripts of the inquiry into the Greater London development plan from 1970 onwards, because I was vice-chairman of the strategic planning committee. Although there are enormous theoretical attractions to strategic planning in London and elsewhere, there is a tremendous gap between the theory and the practice. For example, we have only to


consider Westway, which is half of a road going horizontally across the north of London and the south circular road to realise that strategic transport planning in London has never been achieved. We have only to consider the docklands to see that the GLC, under the administration of both parties, has failed to take a strategic approach to the dereliction of docklands. The only answer was to set up a development corporation to get anything done.
I agree with what Professor Peter Hall said in the report of the Joint Centre for Land Development Studies on the GLC's approach to strategic planning. At paragraph 2.18 he said:
It has not been an effective strategic physical planning authority because it has lacked powers of implementation, and because in consequence it has not found it possible to produce a true strategic plan independent of the boroughs.
The report concludes in paragraph 2.22:
The conclusion, which emerges powerfully from the history, is that essentially the GLC failed to perform effectively the strategic planning and transport functions which had been seen as its central functions by the Herbert Commission in 1960 and by the Government in 1963.
There were many good intentions behind the setting up of the GLC in regard to strategic planning, but the evidence is simply that those ambitions have not been fulfilled.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Minister agree that if the docklands development corporation is given £50 million to achieve the ends it has been set, it is bound to be more successful than a Greater London council that is continually starved of resources?

Sir George Young: I do not agree with that argument. The GLC had grappled since 1964 with the problems of docklands. It had 16 years in which to make some progress. The early 1970s was a period of enormous expansion and there was no shortage of resources, yet nothing happened. When speaking of London, no hon. Member mentioned the London planning commission, which is referred to in paragraph 2.7 of the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities". We made it quite clear that the Government consider that it would be appropriate to establish a London planning commission to advise the Secretary of State on the strategic issues that many hon. Members have mentioned.

Mr. Cohen: Will there be a democratic element in the London planning commission? So far the Minister has not made that clear in any of the written answers that have been given.

Sir George Young: The White Paper makes it clear that the London planning commission is not an elected body.
I turn to the four amendments before the Committee, which would maintain the Secretary of State's duty to consider proposals submitted to him for the alteration of the Greater London development plan or of the metropolitan county structure plans. The Government's view is that it would be a waste of time, money and effort to have to consider alterations that could not be processed before abolition took place, or which would be unlikely to be proceeded with by the transitional councils.
I shall deal with London first. There is, at present, an approved structure plan in force in Greater London and, indeed, in each of the metropolitan counties. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) mentioned, the GLC and the planning authorities are

expected to keep their plans under review. Under section 10 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, they may submit to the Secretary of State such alterations as they consider expedient, and then the Secretary of State may hold an examination in public, under section 9 of the 1981 Act, before taking a decision on any alterations.
In the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities". and the associated consultation paper on planning, we propose that the structure plan function should be transferred to the metropolitan districts and to the London borough councils. However, the existing metropolitan county structure plans and the GLDP would remain in force in the relevant boroughs and districts until it was replaced by a new plan prepared by those councils.
On 4 May, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced simplified proposals. The principle that all planning powers should be devolved remains, but instead of being responsible for both structure and local plans we now propose that the successor authorities should prepare a new simpler type of unitary development plan, which combines the features of both the structure plan and the local plan. We are making no changes to our proposals for regional guidance, for planning conferences or for the London planning commission.

Mr. Straw: If the London planning commission is not to be elected, what sort of individuals does the hon. Gentleman expect to be appointed to it? Will any of them have any function that is representative of individual London borough councils?

Sir George Young: We have not taken any final decisions on the composition of the London planning commission. However, we certainly hope that there will be people on that body who are experienced in London planning issues. Representatives, or people who have been put forward, may provide the input that the hon. Gentleman has suggested. As I think he knows, the commission's role will be art advisory one, and it will have no powers in relation to the borough councils.
I was explaining the position on our proposals for unitary plans. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West mentioned, in particular, the contretemps that we had with the GLC last year on the alterations to the key policy issues, such as employment and offices, to update the GLDP. My Department prepared regulations to govern the formal process of consultation, submission and examination in public of such amendments, but our manifesto commitment to abolish the GLC led us to reconsider the laying of such regulations.
We concluded that it would be illogical to give the GLC formal powers to amend a document which would ultimately be replaced by new plans to be prepared following abolition. As the hon. Gentleman said, the GLC challenged that decision in the courts and obtained a ruling that the Secretary of State was under a duty to make the regulations. In announcing his intention to comply with that ruling, my right hon. Friend made it plain that he still considered the GLC's proposals for amending the GLDP to be a wasteful extravagance in view of our intention to introduce new planning arrangements for London following abolition.
The content of the proposed alterations emphasises the point that they include such matters as policy for women and community areas which, while important, can hardly be regarded as relevant to a land use structure plan. When


announcing that the regulations would be made, my right hon. Friend made it crystal clear that he would be seeking the approval of the House to the inclusion in legislation, to be introduced in this Session, of a power enabling him to defer consideration of such proposals. Subsection (1) meets that commitment.
New clause 12, to which no hon. Member spoke but which is included in this set of amendments, deals with the position of development plans should abolition not be proceeded with following the enactment of the paving Bill. The effect of the new clause is that any alterations to the GLDP or to a metropolitan country structure plan that had been submitted to the Secretary of State and consideration of which had been postponed under clause 8(1), would be automatically approved when clause 8(1) was repealed. That is wholly inappropriate. If abolition were not proceeded with, submitted alterations to the GLDP or to a metropolitan county structure plan should be dealt with as though clause 8(1) of the paving Bill had not been in force. Then, of course, the Secretary of State would need to consider alterations and follow the statutory procedures, including probably an examination in public, before deciding whether to approve the alterations, with or without modifications, or to reject them.
Subsection (1) is a necessary provision in that it helps to prevent the waste of time and money by the Secretary of State and others in considering proposed alterations to structure plans, and I therefore ask the Committee to reject the three amendments and the new clause.

Dr. David Clark: The Minister mentioned at the beginning of his speech the possible amendments to the structure plan, and I and my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) believed that he would return to that point. He said that he had received no suggested amendments from the counties, which is probably the case, but I have two letters dated 6 April from Councillor Fitzsimmons, the chairman of the planning committee of Tyne and Wear council. Although this is a specific inquiry on behalf of Tyne and Wear, I know that it applies to other metropolitan counties. It states:
I would, therefore, welcome your assurance"—
this was written to the Secretary of State—
that you will consider any amendments to the structure plan on"—
In this case, metro extensions—
and thereby remove the concern that this new power, if passed, will be an obstacle to making progress.
That will be a matter of great concern to all the metropolitan councils in the next few weeks and months: are the Government prepared to accept amendments to the structure plan if those counties wish to submit them, and will the Government view them with sympathy?

Sir George Young: Clause 8(1) is not yet enacted, so of course we must do so. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's point is that we would consider suggested alterations on their merits. In no way does the passage of clause 8(1) preclude the Secretary of State from amending the structure plan if the merits of the case require him so to do.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 135, Noes 268.

Division No. 316]
[2.13 am


AYES


Alton, David
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Anderson, Donald
Kirkwood, Archibald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Ashdown, Paddy
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Barnett, Guy
Loyden, Edward


Barron, Kevin
McCartney, Hugh


Beith, A. J.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bell, Stuart
McGuire, Michael


Benn, Tony
McNamara, Kevin


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
McWilliam, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Madden, Max


Boyes, Roland
Marek, Dr John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Martin, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Maxton, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Meacher, Michael


Campbell, Ian
Meadowcroft, Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Michie, William


Canavan, Dennis
Mikardo, Ian


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cartwright, John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
O'Brien, William


Clarke, Thomas
O'Neill, Martin


Clay, Robert
Park, George


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Parry, Robert


Cohen, Harry
Patchett, Terry


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Pendry, Tom


Conlan, Bernard
Penhaligon, David


Corbett, Robin
Pike, Peter


Corbyn, Jeremy
Radice, Giles


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Randall, Stuart


Craigen, J. M.
Redmond, M.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Richardson, Ms Jo


Cunningham, Dr John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Dalyell, Tam
Robertson, George


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Rooker, J. W.


Deakins, Eric
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Dixon, Donald
Rowlands, Ted


Dobson, Frank
Sedgemore, Brian


Dormand, Jack
Sheerman, Barry


Dubs, Alfred
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Duffy, A. E. P.
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Eastham, Ken
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Skinner, Dennis


Fatchett, Derek
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fisher, Mark
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Flannery, Martin
Snape, Peter


Forrester, John
Soley, Clive


Foster, Derek
Straw, Jack


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Garrett, W. E.
Tinn, James


George, Bruce
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Godman, Dr Norman
Wareing, Robert


Hardy, Peter
Weetch, Ken


Harman, Ms Harriet
White, James


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Winnick, David


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Woodall, Alec


Haynes, Frank
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)



Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Janner, Hon Greville
Mr. Allen McKay.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Arnold, Tom
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)






Batiste, Spencer
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bellingham, Henry
Harris, David


Berry, Sir Anthony
Harvey, Robert


Best, Keith
Haselhurst, Alan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hawksley, Warren


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hayes, J.


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hayhoe, Barney


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bottomley, Peter
Heddle, John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Henderson, Barry


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hickmet, Richard


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hind, Kenneth


Bright, Graham
Hirst, Michael


Brinton, Tim
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Holt, Richard


Browne, John
Hooson, Tom


Bruinvels, Peter
Hordern, Peter


Bryan, Sir Paul
Howard, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Bulmer, Esmond
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Butterfill, John
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cash, William
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunter, Andrew


Chope, Christopher
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Churchill, W. S.
Jackson, Robert


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jessel, Toby


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cockeram, Eric
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Coombs, Simon
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, John
Key, Robert


Couchman, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Cranborne, Viscount
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Crouch, David
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knowles, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lang, Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Latham, Michael


Dover, Den
Lawler, Geoffrey


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lawrence, Ivan


Dunn, Robert
Lee, John (Pendle)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Evennett, David
Lightbown, David


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lilley, Peter


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Fallon, Michael
Lord, Michael


Farr, John
Lyell, Nicholas


Favell, Anthony
McCrea, Rev William


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Fletcher, Alexander
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maclean, David John


Forth, Eric
Madel, David


Franks, Cecil
Major, John


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Malins, Humfrey


Freeman, Roger
Malone, Gerald


Gale, Roger
Maples, John


Galley, Roy
Marland, Paul


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marlow, Antony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mates, Michael


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mather, Carol


Goodlad, Alastair
Maude, Hon Francis


Gorst, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gow, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Greenway, Harry
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Gregory, Conal
Mellor, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Grist, Ian
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Ground, Patrick
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Roger


Hanley, Jeremy
Moore, John


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)





Moynihan, Hon C.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Murphy, Christopher
Stanley, John


Neale, Gerrard
Stern, Michael


Needham, Richard
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Nelson, Anthony
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Norris, Steven
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Oppenheim, Philip
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Osborn, Sir John
Stokes, John


Ottaway, Richard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Page, John (Harrow W)
Sumberg, David


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Parris, Matthew
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pawsey, James
Terlezki, Stefan


Pollock, Alexander
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Porter, Barry
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Powley, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thurnham, Peter


Raffan, Keith
Tracey, Richard


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Trippier, David


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Renton, Tim
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rhodes James, Robert
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Viggers, Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Roe, Mrs Marion
Walden, George


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wall, Sir Patrick


Rost, Peter
Waller, Gary


Rowe, Andrew
Ward, John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Ryder, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Watson, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Watts, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wheeler, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Whitfield, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Raymond


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shersby, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Silvester, Fred
Wolfson, Mark


Sims, Roger
Wood, Timothy


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Woodcock, Michael


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Yeo, Tim


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Speller, Tony



Spencer, Derek
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Squire, Robin
Mr. Michael Neubert.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in clause 8, page 7, line 18, leave out subsection (2).

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 107, in clause' 8, page 7, line 20, leave out', or continue to carry out. '.
Amendment No. 111, in clause 8, page 7, leave out lines 26 to 28, and insert
'Provided that this subsection shall not have effect in relation to any initial review of electoral arrangements which the Commission have already commenced pursuant to section 50 of and Schedule 9 to the principal Act'.

Mr. Straw: By clause 8(2) the local government Boundary Commission for England is required not to

(a) carry out, or continue to carry out, any review of the electoral arrangements for Greater London or a metropolitan county; or
(b) formulate proposals with respect to those arrangements or submit a report or any proposals with respect to those arrangements to the Secretary of State".


Amendment No. 40 proposes that clause 8(2) should be deleted. Amendment No. 107 deletes the words "continue to carry out" in line 20 of the clause and amendment No. 111 provides for reviews which have already begun to continue notwithstanding the other provisions of the subsection.
It will be well known to hon. Members that by part IV of the Local Government Act 1972, the local government Boundary Commission is required to conduct reviews of the area, status and electoral arrangements for each local authority. Clause 8(2) proposes that the Boundary Commission should no longer review the electoral arrangements within the metropolitan counties or the GLC.
At first blush it may seem to be sensible and consistent that where the Government are proposing to abolish the metropolitan county councils and the GLC they should also propose to suspend the reviews of the electoral arrangements for those authorities. On further consideration, I hope that my hon. Friends and Conservative Members will agree that it is not so sensible and that some important questions are raised about the operation of the local government Boundary Commission in the interim period.
This clause, like many others, raises an important issue of principle—whether action should be taken by the Bill which pre-supposes that the substantive abolition Bill will be passed during the next Session of Parliament.
The Secretary of State keeps telling the Committee that he is in no sense attempting to pre-empt the will of Parliament, and that this is an interim provisions Bill which will be triggered only when and if the main abolition Bill receives the approval of Parliament. Clause 8(2) clearly pre-supposes that the abolition Bill will go through, and triggers off the arrangements now rather than when it goes through, if it does.
Reviews of county electoral arrangements are taking place, and it would be sensible to continue them. It is possible that the Secretary of State will fail in his attempt to have the Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament because he is not assured of the same supine majority in the other place as he is here. He is not assured that his hon. and noble Friends will stay out of the Chamber so that they will not be affected by arguments that are put forward but will simply go into the Lobby to vote in favour of this outrageous Bill.
2.30 am
The other place may well turn out this Bill. More probably, when it sees the colour, nature and full horror of the substantive Bill, it may reject it. If this Bill or the substantive Bill is thrown out by either Chamber, county elections will have to take place immediately in 1985. They would not be affected by the current review, but further elections and by-elections would be affected by any review of electoral boundaries.
The second and more important reason why this clause is both undesirable and unnecessary is its impact on the other work of the local government boundary commission. I know that it is early in the morning, but I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Under-Secretary would be kind enough to apply himself to what I am saying because I hope that he will deal with it in his reply. As I read part IV of the Local Government Act 1972 the Boundary

Commission is required to conduct reviews in three categories which are inter-related—reviews in the area of each authority, reviews related to the status of each authority and reviews related to the electoral arrangements for each authority. Electoral arrangements are defined fairly narrowly to mean the size of the council and the number and size of the electoral divisions.
If the Bill goes through it is obvious that existing London boroughs and metropolitan districts will have to undertake much more substantial functions than they have at present. The metropolitan districts were devised only some 11 or so years ago and population shifts in those districts may not have been so great as to require a major review of the overall boundaries, although some of the population shifts in the metropolitan areas over the past 10 years have been substantial.
Within London population shifts have been significant. I make no prejudgment, but I think that it would be agreed on all sides that some London boroughs are of such a size that at least a question is raised as to whether they can continue at their present size for the next 10 or 20 years and whether there may not come a time when their area and size will need to be reviewed by the local government Boundary Commission.
I hope the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will be able to make it clear that that work of the Boundary Commission, which should be continuing, will not be undermined or halted by the narrow restriction put upon it to prevent it reviewing electoral arrangements. When the Under-Secretary replies I hope he can make it clear that the Government accept that not only the passage of time since the London Government Act 1963 but the additional responsibilities placed on the shoulders of the London boroughs as well as on metropolitan districts mean that the overall boundaries will have to be reviewed.

Sir George Young: Perhaps it will help if I intervene now. The only arrangements that we seek to suspend are those which involve the authorities that are about to be abolished, which are the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. There are no implications for the boroughs or the districts beneath them in the proposals that are before the Committee.

Mr. Beith: Then why is the clause drafted as it is with references to
electoral arrangements for Greater London"?
There are references to Greater London but not to arrangements for the Greater London council.

Mr. Straw: As always, I defer to the hon. Gentleman's superior legal judgment. As the subsection is drafted, it is not confined to the GLC and the county arrangements, for it refers to the
electoral arrangements for Greater London".
If words are supposed to mean what they say, it is my judgment that the boroughs are included as well.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that when the parliamentary boundaries were being reviewed and the challenge to the boundary commission was taking place it was argued by the commission that the London boroughs' boundaries could not be crossed in electoral terms in creating parliamentary constituencies and that the size of the boroughs themselves was due to be reviewed by the local government rolling boundary commission?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I recall that the rules for devising boundaries stated that the constituencies were not allowed to cross borough boundaries. That means that there are wide disparities in the size of constituencies within London. For example, in Hammersmith there are two very small constituencies and in other areas there are much larger ones. That is a supplementary reason why the boundary reviews should continue.
Our principal consideration is the determination of a sensible area for the boroughs themselves and the need for a review of borough boundaries to take place, which should not be thwarted by the provisions in the Bill. Apparently that could happen as a result of provisions which are loosely worded and open to misinterpretation. I am sure that the Committee would be delighted to accept manuscript amendments, subject to your approval, Mr. Dean, if it is the intention to restrict subsection (2)(a) to electoral arrangements for the GLC.
I think that I have set out the anxieties and worries which lie behind the amendments. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Mr. Beith: The purpose of amendment No. 40 is to remove clause 8(2), which gives rise to many great issues of principle, some of which I shall deal with in my remarks. First, I must start by trying to establish exactly what the provision means. I came to the same view as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). It seemed clear to me that it would extend beyond the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. Subsection (2)(a) removes the obligation to
carry out, or continue to carry out, any review of the electoral arrangements for Greater London or a metropolitan county".
Greater London is not an authority which has specific electoral arrangements. It is an area within which there is a Greater London council and several London borough councils. A metropolitan county is not an authority; it is an area within which there is a metropolitan county council and metropolitan district boroughs, and even within those there are some parish or local councils. The use of the generic term "metropolitan county" or the general term "Greater London" can clearly be taken to embrace the authorities within it just as, if we were discussing electoral arrangements for Scotland, they would be electoral arrangements not for some all Scottish body, but for those areas which were within Scotland. If the Minister is in some difficulty here, we would be happy for the Committee to adjourn for half an hour while the Government looked into the matter more closely and clarified it. There is no doubt in my mind, from the wording as it stands, that it is specific not to a type of authority, but to areas within which there is more than one type of authority. That is not a minor technicality.
If my interpretation is correct, the Bill will prevent the boundary commission from carrying out its duties in respect of bodies that the Government have no intention of abolishing—indeed, bodies whose functions, as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) says, the Government wish to enhance, and whose continued existence is in no doubt. It cannot be right for the normal operations of the boundary commission in relation to all London boroughs, all metropolitan districts and the parish and local councils in metropolitan areas to be suspended, and for the Minister to be relieved of his obligation to lay orders relating to electoral boundary changes in those areas.
This adds a further dimension of importance to the other criticisms that I wish to make of the clause. It also brings it down to a severely practical level. On many of the other points about which I shall argue, the Minister will think, although he will probably not say, "It does not matter what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because we all know that we are going to abolish these bodies. The Bill will be brought forward in due course, it will pass, and therefore it is an academic argument." We do not see it in that way. We intend to oppose the Bill. For the London boroughs the metropolitan boroughs, the parish councils and the local councils, it is far from being an academic question. It is a question that will extend far beyond the abolition Bill, and it will clearly cause a great deal of anxiety and puzzlement in these areas.
At some stage in the proceedings, I hope that the Minister will give us a revised definitive view. I say "definitive", but I do not think that I am likely to accept his word on it. He has no doubt been advised that the clause is intended to relate solely to the authorities that the Government intend to abolish. Indeed, his early intervention suggested that. There can be no explanation for any other objective. It is not for the Minister to interpret the law, however, that is for the courts. If the courts have this placed before them, they will be confronted with words which to any reasonable man convey what I have suggested—that is, whole areas with different tiers of authority in them, and not those specific authorities that the Government intend to abolish. Perhaps we can return to that aspect later after I have dealt with the general principles. At this stage of the consideration, I do not think there can be any alternative to an amendment—perhaps a manuscript amendment—to make the meaning clear.
We all know the position in which the Government have put themselves. They are determined that the Bill will not be amended in Committee in any respect. They intend that there will be no Report stage of the Bill, and are so organising the proceedings. Have any government come before the Committee with a Bill in which they have such total confidence in the parliamentary draftsman that they can advise, through the usual channels, that they intend to take Third Reading on the only remaining day that they have set down for the Bill because there simply will not be any amendments, and no necessity will be discovered to amend the Bill?
I believe that we have now hit upon one of those necessities, and it will emerge in debate whether I am right. I think that we have come across one of the cases where the Bill ought to be amended in Committee. If the Government resist removing this subsection, not on the merits of the issue, but because they are anxious to protect themselves from having a Report stage, reporting the Bill to the House and having further amendments considered, we are in an impossible position. It does not end there. The Government cannot even give the assurance that they will amend the Bill on Report. They intend that there shall be no Report stage. They can only make vague references to what will happen in another place. But what will happen there with this Bill is more doubtful and puzzling than with any other measure in the Government's legislative programme.
2.45 am
Important issues of principle are raised by this part of the clause. It suspends the writ of the boundary


commissioners in relation to authorities in Greater London and the metropolitan counties. That is an extremely dangerous action for the Government to take. Governments should stand well back from messing about with the boundary commission process. After all, it is an aspect of our democratic electoral system that must be protected as much as possible from Government interference. Why else do we have boundary commissioners with their supposedly independent status, and preserve the apparatus of a separate process for arriving at decisions about boundaries? We do that because it is considered that Governments should not be involved in that process. Any Government who suspend the right of the boundary commissioners to investigate electoral boundaries are setting a highly dangerous precedent and are treading ground which previous Administrations have trodden at considerable peril and under considerable criticism.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the functions of the local government boundary commission, which is a rolling commission—that is, it continues without needing to be set in motion each time—is to review the boundaries of shire and metropolitan counties so as to remove anomalies? Under the clause as drafted, that function is also suspended; the metropolitan county areas become locked as they are at present so that the review, which in due course will develop into a parliamentary review, will itself be impeded.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is right and, as his closing words reveal, it has a double significance. It freezes boundaries which in some cases should reasonably be the subject of re-examination, and it has a knock-on effect on the parliamentary boundary commission because the boundaries so frozen are the building blocks from which parliamentary constituencies are made up. The whole process of the parliamentary boundary commissioners is thereby brought in. That is all the more reason why the Government should stand back from this process. But, far from standing back, Ministers are placing themselves right in the firing line, for the clause says:
The Secretary of State need not while this section is in force make an order giving effect to any such proposals made to him by the Commission before the passing of this Act.
In other words, the Secretary of State is taking unto himself the ability to tell the boundary commissioners, "I shall not put forward your proposals. Go away. I do not want to bother with them"—the very power that hon. Members of all parties, in debating our democratic system, have argued that Ministers should not have.
The Minister should cast his mind back to a Home Secretary who did not want to put the proposals of a boundary commission before Parliament. He had to do so in the end. Indeed, he had to ask his hon. Friends to vote against them. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) was that Home Secretary. At least a few Conservative Members will remember those days. They probably took part in the debates in which the most ferocious indignation was expressed at the very idea that a Minister should seek to delay or interrupt in any way the bringing forward of proposals by a boundary commission.
Yet here we have Ministers seeking the ability, by statute, to have no obligation to bring forward boundary

commission proposals. What has happened to the indignation that was rightly expressed on that occasion? This is placing Ministers at the very heart of the process of implementing electoral boundary change, a position from which they should be distancing themselves and from which our procedures have traditionally distanced them.
How Conservative Members, who were so critical of the Government in 1969, can now seek to give the Government powers more draconian than any that were exercised at that time, I cannot understand. After all, the then Home Secretary had an obligation, and his only recourse was to vote down the proposals that he did not want. The Secretary of State is giving himself the opportunity to slide out of that responsibility.
That extremely dangerous step is made doubly dangerous by the contingent and premature nature of the Bill. The Bill's proposals are contingent on the passing of a Bill which is not yet before the House to abolish those authorities. The operation of this clause is not dependent on the passing of that later Bill, and that is one of the worst features of the legislation. This measure comes into force without its supposed justification coming into force. The contingent nature of the process on which we are engaged, which depends on the House subsequently deciding to abolish certain local authorities, makes it even more dangerous for Governments to take these powers.
What happens if the abolition Bill is not passed? That is a clear possibility. Conservative Members may see the light and respond to the strong and powerful eloquence of some Conservative Members. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) called this a squalid Bill and, no doubt, he will have some comments to make when the abolition Bill comes forward. Some conversion may take place among Conservative Members. I should like to be optimistic, although I know that, looking at the Conservative Benches, that is difficult. I should like to feel that there is a chance of a dramatic change of mind. The legislation must still be considered in the other place. I should like to think that there is at least a possibility that the abolition Bill will not be passed. That possibility must be in the forefront of the Committee's mind when considering the provisions of this Bill.
It is dangerous to make provisions on the basis of legislation that has not been passed. Governments have done that before. Hon. Members will remember when workmen were sent scurrying about putting together benches and seats in Edinburgh and buying buildings in Cardiff for assemblies to be set up in Scotland and Wales. Taxpayers' money was spent on setting up facilities for assemblies for which the House had not voted. I voted for the creation of those asemblies, but I did not support the idea of buying buildings to accommodate them and engaging carpenters to set out benches on which the members could sit before the House had legislated for those assemblies.
The Government of the day got their fingers burned, or, to be more precise, the taxpayers' fingers, which the Government were holding in the fire, were burned, because the Government were spending their money on something on which Parliament had not yet decided. That is a bad principle by which to operate, but that is what is happening in this case. The Government are making provision for something on which we have not yet legislated.
Let us assume that the abolition Bill falls. At best, the boundary commissioners' work will have been interrupted


for a year, and they will have to turn to the task of sorting out the boundaries of the Greater London council, the metropolitan councils and, if my argument is right, of all the other councils that will be abolished. The commission will have missed out at least a year in the work on those complex provisions and will have less time to consider the problems of the county boundary changes, to which the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) referred.
Many wider issues are involved, such as the precise boundary of the GLC, the development of the motorway box, which has affected the views of some people on what the GLC's boundaries should be, and the question whether some London boroughs are too big, which in turn affects the size of the electoral wards. Population changes in London occur all the time, and sometimes they are quite dramatic. If the docklands schemes work as we would like, there will be incursions of population into the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). There will still be movement from some constituencies. The boundary commission will not be able to do the necessary work on all those issues.
At worst, if the abolition Bill is not passed, the structure of local governments could be thrown into disorder. It is assumed that the Secretary of State will come shame-faced before the House of Commons to bring forward an order under clause 1(2) to repeal parts II to IV. Just suppose that so mercurial are the shifts of opinion on the Conservative Benches that the Secretary of State's hon. Friends decide not to give him the opportunity to carry that order. They might vote against it. They might be so sick of the way that they have been mucked about by the Government dragging them through the Lobby on the Bill, when the abolition Bill might be lost in another place, that they will say, "We've had enough of these orders." When the Minister brings forward a repeal order, they might vote it down. Therefore, there would be no procedure, and the matter would be entirely dependent on orders. Instead of there being a long-standing statutory basis for the organisation of local government electoral boundary reform, everything will depend on the Minister's ability to get one order through at a later date. Therefore, there are several contingencies.
Let us consider what will happen if the Bill is passed. Many questions will be raised about what the precise size of the metropolitan boroughs should be. Their functions—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. There seems to be a noise coming from the Government Benches.

3 am

Mr. Beith: I was referring to the situation if the abolition Bill is passed and trying to discern how clause 8(2) would operate, working on the Government's own intentions. It is likely that there will be several pressures for altering boundaries. There will be some pressures to alter the size of some of the London metropolitan boroughs. Their functions will have changed. That in itself is a hideously complex task and is interlinked with the issue of ward and electoral boundaries. If the boroughs are increased in size, the ward structure will be changed. Any change in the borough structure will depend upon the viability of the building blocks which the wards constitute. The commission will need time to consider such an issue.

It may want to use the year in which the Bill may be in force to consider those issues, and assemble the information that it would use in either event—if it was dealing with abolished authorities or if the Bill were not passed.
Let us imagine that the commission's normal work had been interrupted and eventually it brought forward some ward boundary proposals. Any such proposals are prey to litigation. It has become apparent in recent years that parties not a million miles from where I am standing are prone to litigate about the report of boundary commissioners. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South has referred to that subject. I have wondered to this day whether some hon. Members on the official Opposition Benches—for example, the former leader of the Labour party, now on the Back Benches, and the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks), the Chief Whip of the official Opposition—dug deep into their own pockets to fund a large case against the previous report of the boundary commissioners. Perhaps they received financial support from elsewhere or perhaps there are ready sources of funds to take the boundary commission to court. If so, I hope that someone will write to or telephone me afterwards and let me have the details of where I can have access to them. The point that I am making is that litigation on the boundary commissions' reports is possible.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the London borough of Enfield went to court, and held up the whole parliamentary boundary commission for many years, I believe, at the ratepayers' expense?

Mr. Beith: That is true. It is not unknown for local authorities to take cases involving the boundary commissioners to court, as well as private individuals, supported or otherwise by outside sources. There are many ways in which litigation can arise. Again, that puts the pressure on the boundary commissioners, in the amount of time that they need to do their job properly. Their job will be seriously set back if their work is interrupted in this way.
In summary, there are major reasons of principle why the Government should not bring forward the clause. The distancing that I thought Conservative Members believed was necessary between the Government and the boundary commission will be destroyed if the Government, first, take away the powers that the boundary commission should exercise and, second, give to themselves the power to ignore the boundary commission's recommendations. As a matter of principle, that is destroying the distance that should exist between the Government of the day—the Executive—and the boundary commission. They are creating practical problems for the local authorities. It is based on an assumption about the passing of the abolition Bill that it is not reasonable for the House to make at this stage, however confident the Government may he, arid it raises problems that will exist even if the abolition Bill is passed—problems for those authorities that the Government intend to abolish and for many local authorities that are not intended for abolition.
Here I return to the defect that I have already described—the application of clause 8(2) (a) to all the local authorities in the Greater London area and the metropolitan counties for which the boundary commission has statutory responsibilities for the electoral boundaries.


This clause is a Pandora's box of legal and practical difficulties and of major issues of principle, and I do not believe that the Government have thought them through. Therefore, I hope that we can prevail on them, at this late hour, to make manuscript amendments to the clause, withdraw it, or give undertakings that they will bring it forward in a drastically changed form on a Report stage which it is becoming increasingly apparent this Bill will need.

Mr. Bermingham: I make no secret of the fact that I have had some slight interest in Boundary Commission matters over some considerable time. Although the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made a good case, he rather spoilt it by making some unncessary, semi-political cracks. Perhaps he should look at some of the examples of what has happened in America, Australia, New Zealand and other such places, where it has been necessary on occasions to challenge the interpretation of the Boundary Commission, and where the question of the quality of the value of the vote is at stake. One would then see the worthwhile use of the court of commission, to find out what should be the case.
When I first looked at clause 8(2), the matter that struck me straight between the eyes was that the mistakes of the 1983 Boundary Commission report, which I have challenged in a professional capacity, will be carried through to the 1989 Boundary Commission report. The commission is due to report between 1989 and 1994 on the restructuring, once again, of the Parliamentary boundaries. One of the appalling things to arise in the last Boundary Commission report was the disproportionate seats arrangement in London. Of the 10 smallest constituencies in England, nine of them are in London. Hammersmith, on the 1976 electoral figures, was 31·6 per cent. below quota.
The problem in London is that every parliamentary seat has to lie within the area of the relevant local London borough. Clause 8(2) as it is drafted means that the review of London local government boundaries, which is now long overdue for a number of reasons, is stopped. The effect of this is that the mistakes of the 1983 report gave a heavily biased result in London to the Conservative party, which will now be carried forward into the 1989 review.
The seat allocation vis-a-vis the country as a whole gives London four more parliamentary seats than it is entitled to, because under calculations of entitlement, it is entitled to 79·97 seats, that is 80, and there are 84. It is interesting to note the boroughs, and the difference in the rounding up and rounding down principle. Normally, if one had 6·5 that gave 7, while 6·45 would give 6, but in London there was a different rule, and the ·45 was rounded up. As a result, four boroughs received an extra seat—Barnet, Greenwich, Bexley and Bromley. I do not need to tell the Committee which party was the main recipient of such a benificence of extra seats. It was not my party, and it was not that of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed either.

Mr. Winnick: Who does that leave?

Mr. Bermingham: I leave that to the Committee to decide.
The matter was worse than that because the way that the London boroughs are structured in size means that

many of the overweight seats are in the inner city, perhaps in declining areas, while places such as Barnet and Finchley seemed to have small seats. The overall position was that there was a bias of anything up to 10 seats in favour of the Conservative party at the end of the day.
If the local government Boundary Commission is to be suspended and the mistakes in London are not rectified between now and the next review, the bias will continue, if the predictions by certain eminent psephologists about weighting in favour of the Government party are correct. It is indeed a blatant example of gerrymandering—one more example from the Bill.

Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware of the discrepancy between the number and size of the parliamentary constituencies within the borough of Barnet, and the number within the neighbouring borough of Haringey, which has the largest constituencies of any urban area in the country and also some of the most severe social problems? The Boundary Commission is perpetuating Tory control in the better-off parts of London and giving under-representation to the worst-off parts.

Mr. Bermingham: That is a valuable point. On the 1976 figures, used by the Boundary Commission, Barnet was entitled to 3·45 seats and given four, and Haringey was entitled to 2·43 seats and given two. That demonstrates my point. It is crucial that there should be parity of representation between boroughs.
The London boroughs were set up under the London Government Act 1963, which also set up the GLC. It was envisaged then, when many of the former London boroughs were amalgamated to form the new boroughs, that there would be a population flow with the passage of time which would in turn lead to the necessity of amalgamating various boroughs in order to provide boroughs of a viable size for the administrative purposes of local government. No hon. Member on either side of the Chamber would not agree that once a borough's population has fallen below a certain level, the situation must be reconsidered. If a borough becomes too small in real terms, its administration becomes top-heavy. A certain realignment of the borough boundaries becomes necessary in order to create a population that can sustain the services that should be provided within the borough.
That has become necessary in certain London boroughs. One that springs to mind is Kingston upon Thames, which had an electorate of 105,000 in 1976 and in parliamentary terms was entitled to 1·60 seats and was given two. That is a very small borough and the question of the area and its needs has been considered again.
It is not just on the basis of London that I suggest that this is blatant gerrymandering. The metropolitan districts are the areas within which the parliamentary constituencies were constructed. In its 1983 report, the Boundary Commission on occasion crossed metropolitan district boundaries—for example, in Tyne and Wear and, I believe, in Greater Manchester. However, because of the adjacent county areas, there will be further problems in the 1989–94 review. Those problems could have been taken care of if the local government boundary commission had been allowed to function properly.
Clause 8(2) should be struck from the Bill because it is a disgrace. I hope that the Minister will come to the Dispatch Box and say that it was not the original purpose, but an intepretation of the drafting. There comes a point


in time when local government boundaries have to be reviewed, and that time is rapidly approaching on the question of size and other matters within London. Some of the fringes of the metropolitan area need tidying. We hope that they will be tidied by a local government commission during the next couple of years.

Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend cast his mind forward? He has a great deal of experience of Boundary Commissions. What will be the long-term effect on the representation of the people of London of the passage of the Bill, with the open-ended central control and the nonexistence of the Boundary Commission? What will be the long-term implications of the parliamentary representation of the people of London, especially in the poorest inner-city areas? He has already demonstrated that they are under-represented.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) will not stray into the question of parliamentary boundaries. I realise that there is a link for London, but we must stick to the local government boundary commission.

Mr. Bermingham: At this late hour, I do not seek to stray. However, the layout of local government is the building block of boundaries. I suspect that the representation of those most in need will continue to decrease rather than increase because the flow of population will benefit the richer areas at the expense of the poor areas. The democracy of London will begin, once again, to suffer.
I ask the Secretary of State to look again at clause 8(2), to take it away, to have it redrafted, to clarify exactly what it means and to come back with the reassurance that the local government commission which, over the years, by and large has produced reports that were fair in overall content and dealt with the district councils, county councils and even parish councils, should begin the review of the London boroughs that is long overdue. I trust that the Government do not intend to trespass down the road of invasion of local democracy and the way in which people are represented at a local level. The path that the Government currently seek to tread is extremely dangerous. The Secretary of State is taking upon himself the power to determine who should vote, where and when he feels like it.

Mr. Winnick: Has my hon. Friend considered the existing position where, apparently, the average electorate per councillor varies from about 8,600 in Tyne and Wear to over 19,000 in the west Midlands? The Boundary Commission is aiming for an average of 15,000 to 20,000 electors. If the clause goes through as it stands, is there not a clear danger that the discrepancies will continue? That is a strong reason why the Boundary Commission should be allowed to carry on its present duties. Is my hon. Friend aware of the discrepancies to which I have referred?

Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am well aware of that type of discrepancy, which is a tragedy, that will continue if clause 8 goes through because the ironing out of such discrepancies has been proceeding under the present commission. That is yet another aspect of this matter that affects metropolitan authorities. It seems that they are once more being singled

out for special treatment. It might be because they pro vide better services than the adjacent shire counties. Of course, I would not know about that.
Representation is an important matter that goes to the heart of our form of local democracy. I wonder what the local government Boundary Commission will do when it is suspended. Its review of district councils is complete and its review of many county councils is almost complete. It was about to start on the interesting areas such as London. No doubt the Minister will tell us how he intends to employ it once he has managed to suspend most of its work because it does not suit his party.

Mr. Winnick: I understand that if the main Bill were defeated or withdrawn, the elections that are due next year would be held on the present boundaries, with all of their defects. Is it not wrong that the emphasis of this paving Bill is another Bill that we have not debated and the results of which we do not know? On the assumption that we take one Bill at a time, we must work on the basis that there will be elections next year. If there are, all of the defects will continue because the Boundary Commission has not wound up its work.

Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend is right. It is like telling a man that he will be hanged in the morning and that we shall have his trial the following day to find out what we hanged him for. That is what the Bill is all about. We are to get rid of the GLC and the metropolitan counties and then be told why. None of us is so naive as not to know what is going on. Such councils are being abolished because they provide services that people like. In south Yorkshire, where I have lived for many years, we have a bus service of which we are enormously proud. People actually use it and sign petitions in huge numbers in support of its retention.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is now straying from the amendment.

Mr. Bermingham: I would not dream of arguing with you, Mr. Dean. I was merely using that as an example of the exercise of the democratic right to sign a petition to protect the bus service. Opposition Members are asking the Committee to support the concept of democracy by voting for amendment No. 40. It will do away with this attack on the fundamentals of democracy—by which I mean the periodic review of areas and the right of representation. I ask the Committee to support amendment No. 40.

Mr. Corbyn: I strongly support amendment No. 40. Although it might seem curious to outsiders that we should be discussing boundary commissions at 3.20 am, if they realised just how much the Bill impinges on so many of their democratic and civic rights, they would be even more appalled than they are already.
The amendment seeks the deletion of subsection (2), which states:
The Local Government Boundary Commission for England shall not at any time while this section is in force—

(a) carry out, or continue to carry out, a review of the electoral arrangements for greater London".
I have the privilege to represent Islington, and through the London Labour party I have experience of many hours of discussion over boundary commissions and the way that the boundaries are drawn in London. Unless the process can be continuous, and there is a continuous review of how the boundaries operate, inequalities become fossilised and


further inequalities are created. As a result of the shift in population, that works to the detriment of the poorest parts of London.

Mr. Chris Smith: When considering the borough that we both have the privilege to represent, will my hon. Friend bear in mind two particular areas of the borough of Islington? The first is the Finsbury Park area in the north, and the second is the Kings Cross area in the south. Kings Cross is covered by two, and Finsbury Park by three, neighbouring boroughs. However those areas are communities in themselves, and the existing boundaries are detrimental to the servicing of community life there.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend has pointed out a very real problem for some inner city areas. Kings Cross is part of his constituency, but it also has a boundary with the borough of Camden. Part of Finsbury Park is in my constituency of Islington, North, but it also includes part of Haringey and part of Hackney. The long-term effect of not being prepared to consider how boundary changes could improve services in the area is that areas such as Kings Cross and Finsbury Park become outposts of the borough. They are ignored by all the boroughs, because they are the furthest flung areas. Consequently, they tend to be ignored in the way that local services are administered. In the case of Finsbury Park, we have tried to overcome that by the establishment of an inter-borough committee.

Mr. Straw: I was a councillor for a ward that took in one quarter of Finsbury Park.

An Hon. Member: Now it is all coming out.

Mr. Straw: It was not my fault, but was due to the way in which the boundaries were drawn. Finsbury Park is bisected not only by ward boundaries but by borough boundaries and it was almost impossible for any representative to get action taken in that area, and it shows.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. He represented part of the Finsbury Park area. It is almost a superhuman problem to try to put pressure on British Rail to improve its station and clean up the station's facilities. It is, indeed, a superhuman problem to overcome the bureaucracies of three borough councils as well as deal with British Rail and the many other statutory authorities. Problems occur whenever an area is bisected by borough boundaries.
That is the sort of problem to which borough councils and others will want to address themselves when considering the long-term implications of not carrying out the Boundary Commission proposals. As hon. Members have said, the Bill is open-ended, and an open-ended form of control is passed to the Secretary of State. It is taken away from local authorities and from the Boundary Commission. Is it right that the unequal and often wrongly drawn boundaries in London, which involve such ridiculous problems—as witnessed in Finsbury Park, for example—should be allowed to continue merely because the Government are trying to force this legislation through to destroy elected authorities in this country?

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is just the obnoxious feature of the Bill to which the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) referred? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the point made

by the former leader of the Tory party, who asked the pertinent question: what would be the reaction of Conservative Members if a Labour Government tried to introduce this and other measures in the Bill? Is it not interesting that this measure, which gives to the Executive much more power than it should have, has not met with the opposition that one would expect from Conservative Members, especially with all their talk about controlling the Executive?

Mr. John Page: rose—

Mr. Corbyn: I realise that everyone is queueing up to join in the debate. I am glad, because it is important. My hon. Friend's point is important, because if the Bill goes through—

Mr. Winnick: He has been silenced.

Mr. Corbyn: I hope that no one has been silenced in this debate—

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. As far as I understand the position, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) wished to intervene in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), but a Government Whip has tried to persuade him not to intervene.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) is perfectly capable of looking after himself.

Mr. Page: rose—

Mr. Corbyn: I do not wish anyone to be gagged. This is a place of free speech—perhaps one of the last few, but nevertheless a place of free speech.

Mr. Page: I was hoping to make a great speech myself, Mr. Dean, and I thought that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who has always been courteous to me in the past, was giving way to me. All that I wanted to say to my hon. Friend the Minister, in contradiction of the hon. Gentleman, was that the people of Harrow are longing for the Boundary Commission to stop mucking about with the boundaries, as is practically everyone else in London. The longer that he can keep the Boundary Commission locked up the better we shall like it.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: rose—

Mr. Corbyn: I shall try to deal with one point at a time. I understand that some people might not want boundaries to be changed, but I suppose that a Tory who represents Harrow would not want boundaries to be changed, would he?
The serious aspect of this, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said, is that parliamentary boundaries are set on the basis of local government boundaries. That is the rule on which all boundary commissions work. If the clause is passed, the Boundary Commission in London will stop working. There will be fossilisation throughout London. What will happen in a few years' time? Will the Home Secretary then creep to the Dispatch Box and do what he has condemned others for doing: say that the Government cannot go ahead with the parliamentary review because the groundwork has not been carried out?

Mr. Tony Banks: Does my hon. Friend accept that the time has come when all the boundaries of the London


boroughs should be examined? The London Government Act 1963 reduced the number of boroughs, and we have now reached the stage 21 years later where boroughs should be further reduced. The number of boroughs in London should be halved in order to complement a large regional authority, which we hope will be a future GLC.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has a great understanding of government in London and the problems that go with it. He has studied those matters for some time, and he made a valuable point.
We are in danger of fossilising existing boroughs boundaries and we are also in danger of continuing the dreadful inequalities in the sizes of boroughs. Does this have something to do with some people's wish to control the London Boroughs Association?

Mr. David Penhaligon: Those of us from more rural areas than Islington are somewhat puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's use of the word "outpost" in describing the difficulties experienced in urban areas. As we have as much right to vote on this as anyone else, perhaps he will explain the problems further so that those of us from rural areas who wish the opposition to the Bill well can follow in more detail the difficulties arising in three districts relative to a railway station. As we are not used to such densities of population we do not quite follow that part of the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. Corbyn: I sympathise with the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) as I understand that there are not many railway stations left in his part of the world following recent closures. Having grown up in a rural area I am familiar with the problems of county boundaries that split areas. The border between Shropshire and Staffordshire was a few hundred yards from my home and created many administrative problems. For example, three times as many children passed the 11-plus in one county as in the other, which created all kinds of social divisions in the village. That kind of problem exists to this day because county boundaries are so chaotic in many areas. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands the word "outpost". He might not recognise Finsbury Park as an outpost of the kind that exist around Truro, but he would certainly recognise it as an area of divisions and possibly some conflict.

Mr. Bermingham: Perhaps My hon. Friend will comment further on the suggestion by the hon. Member for Harrow. West (Mr. Page) that the Boundary Commission should stop mucking about. Can he explain why Harrow, West has an electorate of 73,151 whereas Harrow, East has an electorate of 79,926 and Surbiton has an electorate of only 46,949? How can the electors of Harrow, East or West, be expected to feel that they have a fair crack of the whip when not many miles away there are electorates of roughly half the size? That certainly does not seem fair to me.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will not be tempted to go down that road. We must not discuss detailed points of that kind. The amendment is about whether the work of the Boundary Commission should proceed.

Mr. Corbyn: I am grateful to you, Mr. Dean. The Committee and the public must understand, however, that

if the local government Boundary Commission is prevented from carrying out its work the rules under which it operates and the fact that its work constitutes an ongoing process mean that parliamentary boundaries will inevitably be affected. Parliamentary boundaries in London never cross borough boundaries, so if borough boundaries remain unchanged the inequalities will remain. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) must feel deep anger at the size of his constituency and his work load compared with the very small electorate of the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey). That is just one of the many inequalities in London.
The latter part of subsection (2), with which I have not yet been able to deal due to the large number of interventions, provides that
the Secretary of State need not while this section is in force make an order giving effect to any such proposals made to him by the Commission before the passing of this Act.
That is an absolute scandal. The Boundary Commission was set up to examine things and is now at work. If this provision is passed, the commission's work will be stopped at a stroke, the hopes of many people will be destroyed and the inequalities will continue. That is the effect of the clause. Our amendment seeks to bring some sanity to the way in which local government boundaries are drawn.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Like the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) I am listening with interest to the exchanges and trying to be as objective as possible about which Lobby to enter. My hon. Friend made several references to the Boundary Commissions. Does he know whether they were consulted about the clause?

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important question. [Interruption.] It is important and any hon. Member who doubts it, should listen carefully. The Boundary Commissions were created with the specific intention that they should be independent. Many hon. Members will have gone before Boundary Commissions, mounted arguments against their proposals and said, "I don't like it. They are biased." But the Bill destroys the work of the Boundary Commissions and hands control for boundary-making directly to the Secretary of State. It moves them from the concept of independence to control by the Secretary of State.
The Bill destroys elections, gives the Secretary of State enormous powers of patronage, and, in this clause, interferes with the work of the Boundary Commissions and all that goes with them in terms of political power, the distribution of wealth in London and even the control of the London Boroughs Association because of the size of particular boroughs.
The amendment is especially important. It has not hit the headlines. The predominant headline has been the Government's roughshod riding over democracy in London and the metropolitan counties by destroying elections. The by-product of destroying elections is the destruction of equality and fairness of future elections. I hope that the Committee will recognise that and support the amendment. If we do not, many people will say, "What on earth are democratically elected politicians doing sitting up all night if all they do is allow the


Secretary of State to destroy elected government in London and the metropolitan counties and the basis of future democratic elections in local authorities?"
I wonder whether the Government have similar plans for the borough councils, and whether the centralisation of power will stop at the metropolitan counties. The Committee must consider those implications. Unless hon. Members are prepared to see the inequalities that exist within borough councils—

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. Although I am sitting in the closest possible proximity to my hon. Friend, I cannot hear what he is saying because many hon. Members are baying and laughing. There might be—[Interruption.] One cannot even make a point of order. Some hon. Members may wish to go home, but I am happy to stay longer to listen to my hon. Friend's excellent points.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I am sure that the Committee wishes to hear the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

Mr. Wrigglesworth: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. Is it in order for the Minister to show a flag of surrender during the course of the hon. Gentleman's speech? It is a novel parliamentary procedure and I wonder how it might be recorded.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Corbyn: I realise that some hon. Members do not want to discuss this matter seriously. I have been looking at the Conservative Benches to see a white flag or a tie raised or waved, or a shirt taken off, but that has not happened yet. I see that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) offers me a tie.
We are discussing a serious matter, and I hope that the Committee recognises that we will not allow our local elections, our local government, and its democracy and independence to be destroyed by this cavalier, miserable bunch who have tried to destroy democracy in so many other ways.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: rose—

Sir George Young: Two arguments have been put forward. One was that the Government had inadvertently knocked out a number of other reviews—the parliamentary boundary commission and the review of the ward boundaries within the boroughs and the districts. I will say a word about that in a moment. The other argument was that the measures were premature and anticipated the main abolition Bill. When I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), I confirmed that the Government's intention was to suspend the review for the authorities that were being abolished. That point was developed by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
One must do some detective work to find out why that is the case. In clause 8(2)(a) there is a referene to
any review of the electoral arrangements".
Clause 11(3) provides:
Any expression used in this Act which is also used in the principal Act has the same meaning as in that Act.
Electoral arrangements are defined in section 78 of the principal Act, the Local Government Act 1972, in such a

way that they have meaning only when they are related to a principal area. "The principal area" here is clearly Greater London or a metropolitan county, not the London boroughs nor the metropolitan districts, each of which is a separate principal area, because that is what is provided in the subsection.
As drafted, the Bill would have a direct impact only on the authorities that were to be abolished. As far as I can see, this cause has no implications for the electorate in Truro; the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) can set his mind at rest on that point.
A further argument adduced by a number of hon. Members related more to the priniple in this part of the Bill. The Government brought forward the provision to prevent the waste of time and resources by the local government boundary commission and the Home Office. It seemed to us that to continue with reviews of electoral arrangements for local authorities which were to be shortly abolished, and for which the elections scheduled for 1985 will be abolished by the Bill, would have been open to criticism. However, I recognise the genuine anxiety that has been expressed and there are clearly strong arguments both ways. In the circumstances, it would be right for the Government to consider the point further, and if the amendments are withdrawn I give an undertaking that the Government will reconsider the matter carefully in the light of the debate.

Mr. Straw: This is the first occasion on this Bill and the associated Rates Bill that the Government have accepted the force of the arguments advanced on a substantial issue.

Mr. Waldegrave: Swinging moorings.

Mr. Straw: The Minister says "Swinging moorings" from a sedentary position, but we both know that the taxation of swinging moorings was not the main purpose of the Rates Bill. In contrast to swinging moorings, the issues raised by this clause represent major issues of principle.
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on their eloquent arguments on the principle. We are glad that the Government have recognised the force of the argument. In the light of the categorical undertaking that the Under-Secretary of State has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 17, Noes 251.

Division No. 317]
[3.44 am


AYES


Alton, David
Madden, Max


Ashdown, Paddy
Meadowcroft, Michael


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Penhaligon, David


Beith, A. J.
Richardson, Ms Jo


Clay, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Cohen, Harry
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Corbyn, Jeremy



Freud, Clement
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kirkwood, Archibald
Mr. John Cartwright and


Loyden, Edward
Mr. Simon Hughes.






NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Hanley, Jeremy


Alexander, Richard
Hannam, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Amess, David
Harris, David


Arnold, Tom
Harvey, Robert


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Haselhurst, Alan


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Hawksley, Warren


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Hayes, J.


Batiste, Spencer
Hayhoe, Barney


Bellingham, Henry
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bendall, Vivian
Heddle, John


Berry, Sir Anthony
Henderson, Barry


Best, Keith
Hickmet, Richard


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hind, Kenneth


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hirst, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Holt, Richard


Bottomley, Peter
Hooson, Tom


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hordern, Peter


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Howard, Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bright, Graham
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Brinton, Tim
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Browne, John
Hunter, Andrew


Bruinvels, Peter
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jackson, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Bulmer, Esmond
Jessel, Toby


Butterfill, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Key, Robert


Cash, William
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Chapman, Sydney
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Chope, Christopher
Knowles, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lang, Ian


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Latham, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Lawler, Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon
Lawrence, Ivan


Cope, John
Lee, John (Pendle)


Couchman, James
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Crouch, David
Lightbown, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lilley, Peter


Dorrell, Stephen
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lord, Michael


Dover, Den
Lyell, Nicholas


duCann, Rt Hon Edward
McCrea, Rev William


Dunn, Robert
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Emery, Sir Peter
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Evennett, David
Maclean, David John


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Madel, David


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Major, John


Fallon, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Farr, John
Malone, Gerald


Favell, Anthony
Maples, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Marland, Paul


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marlow, Antony


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mates, Michael


Forth, Eric
Mather, Carol


Franks, Cecil
Maude, Hon Francis


Freeman, Roger
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gale, Roger
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Galley, Roy
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mellor, David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Gorst, John
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Greenway, Harry
Moate, Roger


Gregory, Conal
Moore, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Grist, Ian
Moynihan, Hon C.


Ground, Patrick
Murphy, Christopher


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neale, Gerrard





Needham, Richard
Stern, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Neubert, Michael
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Norris, Steven
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Oppenheim, Philip
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Osborn, Sir John
Stokes, John


Ottaway, Richard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Page, John (Harrow W)
Sumberg, David


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Parris, Matthew
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pattie, Geoffrey
Terlezki, Stefan


Pawsey, James
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pollock, Alexander
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Porter, Barry
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thornton, Malcolm


Powley, John
Thurnham, Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Tracey, Richard


Raffan, Keith
Trippier, David


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Renton, Tim
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rhodes James, Robert
Viggers, Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Walden, George


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wall, Sir Patrick


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Waller, Gary


Rowe, Andrew
Ward, John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Ryder, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Watson, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Watts, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wheeler, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Whitfield, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Raymond


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wiggin, Jerry


Silvester, Fred
Wilkinson, John


Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wood, Timothy


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Woodcock, Michael


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Speller, Tony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spencer, Derek



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Noes:


Squire, Robin
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Archie Hamilton.


Stanley, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Beith: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Chairman. I know that the Minister was trying to be helpful to the Committee, and I would want to acquit him of any suggestion that he was not being as helpful as he could be, but, just before the Division, he had to skip quickly over references to principal statutes, and could make only the briefest reference to a concession that he hoped to make—without specifying where it was—in another place. I therefore invite you to consider whether the Committee sitting could not be suspended for a short time so that we could get the position clearer.
There is a second reason why I think that it might be useful to do this, as well as getting that little extra information from the Minister who, I think was genuinely trying to be helpful at that stage. During the latter part of that debate, there were Whips and all sorts of hon. Members—people fom the Conservative party and from the Labour party—scurrying about the Chamber, obviously trying to engage in some other urgent and pressing business which it would be easier to facilitate if there were a short adjournment. I invite you to consider that matter, Mr. Deputy Chairman.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is not raising a point of order, but making comments about the Minister's speech, which often happens in the Chamber.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I beg to move amendment No. 96, in clause 8, page 7, line 29, leave out subsection (3).
Subsection (3) of clause 8 states:
The Secretary of State need not at any time while this section is in force consider, or continue to consider, proposals submitted to him…under section 25 of the Water Act 1973.
The section of the Water Act to which this refers is a provision that enables the transfer of recreation and amenity functions to the Greater London council. That Act was introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) in 1973. It will be noted that the the right hon. and learned Gentleman has consistently opposed the main provision of the Bill with regard to local government.
The Water Act 1973 set up a body called the Water Space Amenity Commission. It also provided for the devolution of the powers of amenity and recreation to the GLC. It is interesting to note that among the distinguished Members of Parliament who responded to the debate on that occasion were Lord Tonypandy and the present Secretary of State for the Environment, who duly voted for the Second Reading of that measure.
The provision now before the Committee will further weaken powers in relation to water amenities. The Water Act 1983 abolished the Water Space Amenity Commission, despite opposition from the Liberal Benches. It was a national body which, with a modest budget, was inaugurated to promote the recreational use of water. Again, however, the Government abolished what their predecessors, under the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), had set up.
We now have the situation of a previous Government having introduced a power under the 1973 Act by which they deliberately took out of the hands of an appointed body—on that occasion, the Thames water authority—certain functions that they believed at that time were better placed in the hands of a democratic body, and they therefore devolved them to the GLC.

4 am

Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman has misread the Water Act 1973. It did not provide for the immediate transfer of powers as he suggests. It provided for the water authority to propose the transfer of powers and for the Secretary of State to consider the matter, which is different from what he has been describing.

Mr. Meadowcroft: The hon. Gentleman is correct but is nitpicking in the sense that the purpose of the Act was to enable the transfer of powers from a body that was largely appointed to one that was totally elected. But, 10 years later, the Water Act 1983 had the effect of putting it all into the hands of the Secretary of State. At least the Government are being consistent in their approach to local government because in the way that the 1983 Act took away those functions and placed them in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Environment, so we are vesting in one Minister all the powers that previously related to a democratic body.
There was no mention of water recreation in "Streamlining the Cities" and we have continually objected to the way in which the water authorities were set

up, being put into the hands of appointed members, rather than of local authority elected members, so that they have become about the worst sort of quango imaginable. For that reason this provision will be disastrous for the public in the GLC area who are interested in water sport and amenities. Hence the need for the amendment.

Mr. Tony Banks: When I was—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] Despite the lateness of the hour, at least I am capable of reading, which is more than can be said of most Conservative Members.
When I was chairman of the arts and recreation committee of the GLC, this issue concerned us greatly. Under the Water Act 1973 it was envisaged that the GLC would be responsible for the recreational resources and facilities on the Thames, and that made sense because, apart from anything else, the GLC's arts and recreational facilities and functions make that council uniquely qualified to organise recreational facilities on the Thames. I never understood how one could imagine that the Thames water authority should be given such a function.
It also made sense because the GLC owns many of the major piers in the central London area. Westminster, Charing Cross and Tower piers are all GLC owned. I was pleased, as chairman of the arts and recreation committee, to suggest that we should transfer the old Battersea park pier down to the south bank and open the new festival pier, which is now outside the Royal Festival hall, on the river. It was a matter of great delight that, when Her Majesty the Queen went to open the new Thames barrier, she left from the new GLC festival pier in her launch and sailed down the Thames. It is practical for the authority running the piers to run services from those piers. Until the transfer of functions is effected, the GLC cannot do so.
There has been a gradual deterioration in the general level of services provided by pleasure craft. Those craft attract large numbers of Londoners and visitors to our capital city enabling them to go up and down the Thames to see the sights. Frankly, at times I have been dissatisfied with the quality of the commentary given by boat owners to tourists. I looked carefully at regulations on those commentaries so that real information could be imparted to our tourists, rather than a glib, running commentary, which in many cases was totally inaccurate in conveying the history and industry of London. It seemed to us that, if the GLC could have the responsibility for running boat services as well as the piers, a much better service could be given to Londonders.
The new Thames barrier provides a further opportunity for recreational facilities when the barrier is up. It could provide a large lagoon in which a number of exciting and interesting sporting events could take place to the great delight of Londoners and all our visitors.
We were concerned that we were unable to get the transfer of functions that the Water Act 1973 envisaged. [Interruption.] I am trying to speak above the babble of the malcontents on the Conservative Benches, who thought that they were going home—

Mr. Cartwright: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. The hon. Gentleman is making some very important points on an amendment that is of great concern to a number of Londoners. It is impossible for alliance Members to hear what is being said because of the noise of hon. Members beyond the Bar of the Chamber. I ask you, Mr. Armstrong, to ensure that speeches are audible.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The Committee has heard the hon. Member.

Mr. Banks: We are accustomed to boorish behaviour by Conservative Members.
It makes a great deal of sense for an authority such as the GLC, with its vast experience in providing recreational facilities, to provide these facilities on the Thames. The delay in making the transfer under the 1973 Act has not only damaged tourism in London, especially the boat trade on the Thames, but has resulted in a failure to make the logical step in providing sport and recreational facilities.

Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend think that the lack of democracy that is associated with quangos and the great deal of democracy that goes with the election of the GLC may mean that the dream of many Londoners, especially in the east end and the south-east, to travel on their river and enjoy their facilities will be dashed by this nasty legislation which will take away the birthright of many working class people in London?

Mr. Banks: I agree with my hon. Friend, which would hardly come as a great surprise to Conservative Members. One of the great delights of London is that we have the cleanest urban river in the whole of Europe. Great tribute should be paid to the London county council and the GLC for taking steps to ensure that the river was cleaned up.
Hon. Members will have read of when the House was suspended because of the stench from the river. Fortunately, those days are now long past. The river was cleaned up because of the steps taken by the public authorities—the big, city-wide public authorities in London. Therefore, if we can gain more access to the river for Londoners, we will be discharging—

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is talking about the cleanliness of London's river and the improvements that have taken place. Can he think of any occasion anywhere in the world when a private enterprise operation in charge of waterways had done anything about pollution other than to make it worse?

Mr. Banks: I cannot quote such an example because my hon. Friend knows that what he said is true. We have the cleanest urban river in Europe. One has only to think of rivers in other parts of western Europe to know how fortunate we are to have such a clean stream a few yards away.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will the hon. Gentleman, for the benefit of those who represent constituencies outside London who are not familiar with the things that he is talking about, speculate on what might happen if the amendment were not accepted by the Committee?

Mr. Banks: Some of the rivers in the north-east could do with being cleaned up. I ask hon. Members from the north-east and the north-west to look at the river here and, when they go back to their constituencies, compare it with the rivers on Merseyside and Tyneside. Much river life is now returning to London. The salmon are coming back up the Thames. It is a great tribute to the GLC and the LCC—

Mr. Corbyn: The chickens are coming home to roost.

Mr. Banks: I was referring not to chickens but to salmon. Chickens may eventually come up the Thames, but at the moment it is definitely salmon—

Mr. Corbyn: I meant that the chickens are corning home to roost on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Banks: I see. Whether it is chickens or salmon coming up the Thames—walking or swimming—I am delighted that life is returning to our river.
If the amendment were passed, we would have a sensible transfer of functions, and the GLC could more sensibly and rationally approach the question of further provision of recreational facilities for Londoners.

Sir George Young: The amendment seeks to maintain the Secretary of State's duty to consider proposals submitted to him on the transfer of recreation and amenity functions from the Thames water authority to the GLC.
We put subsection (3) in the Bill to avoid abortive work and unnecessary expense in the transitional period leading to abolition. Suspending this duty is entirely reasonable. There is simply no point in transferring to the GLC a function which, some months later, would revert to the Thames water authority if the GLC were abolished. Although the duty is being suspended, the Secretary of State will still be able, if he deems it expedient, to consider the proposals. Should abolition fail, the provision would be repealed by order under clause 1.
The transfer of those functions has been under discussion between the Thames water authority and the GLC since 1975, and it does not seem to me enormously damaging to suspend the negotiations and the Secretary of State's duty at least until Parliament has decided the main abolition issue. For that reason I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. Meadowcroft: The principle enshrined in the phrasing in this part of the 13i11 is undemocratic, as shown by the words:
The Secretary of State need not at any time…consider".
Thus it is incumbent upon us to reject the arguments—

Mr. Beith: Before my hon. Friend goes on, will he reflect on the point that the Minister spoke as though—assuming that the abolition Bill fails at a later stage—these provisions will automatically be repealed. However, that is not so, as the Secretary of State may bring forward an order, which the House may pass. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear this in mind in the advice that he gives to the Committee.

Mr. Meadowcroft: My hon. Friend's point is valid. The Committee cannot let pass any part of the Bill that allows the Secretary of State certain powers that are dependent on other legislation that we have not yet seen. Therefore, we shall press this to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 22, Noes 235.

Division No. 318]
[4.14 am


AYES


Ashdown, Paddy
Kirkwood, Archibald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Madden, Max


Barron, Kevin
Marek, Dr John


Beith, A. J.
Maxton, John


Cartwright, John
Penhaligon, David


Cohen, Harry
Sedgemore, Brian


Conlan, Bernard
Skinner, Dennis


Corbyn, Jeremy
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Fisher, Mark
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Flannery, Martin



Freud, Clement
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. David Alton.






NOES


Alexander, Richard
Harris, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Harvey, Robert


Amess, David
Haselhurst, Alan


Arnold, Tom
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Hawksley, Warren


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Hayes, J.


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Hayhoe, Barney


Batiste, Spencer
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bellingham, Henry
Heddle, John


Bendall, Vivian
Henderson, Barry


Berry, Sir Anthony
Hickmet, Richard


Best, Keith
Hind, Kenneth


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hirst, Michael


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Holt, Richard


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hooson, Tom


Bottom ley, Peter
Howard, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Bright, Graham
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Brinton, Tim
Hunter, Andrew


Brooke, Hon Peter
Jackson, Robert


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Jessel, Toby


Bruinvels, Peter
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Buck, Sir Antony
Key, Robert


Bulmer, Esmond
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Butterfill, John
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Knowles, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lang, Ian


Cash, William
Latham, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Lawler, Geoffrey


Chope, Christopher
Lawrence, Ivan


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Cockeram, Eric
Lightbown, David


Coombs, Simon
Lilley, Peter


Cope, John
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Couchman, James
Lord, Michael


Cranborne, Viscount
Lyell, Nicholas


Crouch, David
McCrea, Rev William


Currie, Mrs Edwina
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Dorrell, Stephen
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Maclean, David John


Dover, Den
Madel, David


Dunn, Robert
Major, John


Emery, Sir Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Evennett, David
Malone, Gerald


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Maples, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marland, Paul


Fallon, Michael
Mates, Michael


Farr, John
Mather, Carol


Favell, Anthony
Maude, Hon Francis


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Forth, Eric
Mellor, David


Franks, Cecil
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Freeman, Roger
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Gale, Roger
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Galley, Roy
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moate, Roger


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moore, John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Moynihan, Hon C.


Goodlad, Alastair
Murphy, Christopher


Gorst, John
Needham, Richard


Greenway, Harry
Nelson, Anthony


Gregory, Conal
Nicholls, Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Norris, Steven


Grist, Ian
Osborn, Sir John


Ground, Patrick
Ottaway, Richard


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Page, John (Harrow W)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hanley, Jeremy
Parris, Matthew


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Pattie, Geoffrey





Pawsey, James
Stradling Thomas, J.


Porter, Barry
Sumberg, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Powley, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Raffan, Keith
Terlezki, Stefan


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Renton, Tim
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rhodes James, Robert
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thornton, Malcolm


Rifkind, Malcolm
Tracey, Richard


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Trippier, David


Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roe, Mrs Marion
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Viggers, Peter


Rowe, Andrew
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Waldegrave, Hon William


Ryder, Richard
Walden, George


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wall, Sir Patrick


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Waller, Gary


Sayeed, Jonathan
Ward, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Warren, Kenneth


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watson, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Watts, John


Sims, Roger
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wheeler, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Whitfield, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Raymond


Speller, Tony
Wiggin, Jerry


Spencer, Derek
Wilkinson, John


Squire, Robin
Wolfson, Mark


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wood, Timothy


Stanley, John
Woodcock, Michael


Stern, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)



Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Mr. David Hunt.


Stokes, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Cartwright: I beg to move amendment No. 108, in page 7, line 34, leave out subsection (4).
The amendment relates to the Reservoirs Act 1975, which replaced the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act 1930, which was regarded as no longer effective in the modern situation. Although the Act was put on the statute book in 1975 and last year had been in existence for eight years, it was only in 1983 that the Government announced that they were to bring it into force.
The Act makes county councils responsible for registering all reservoirs in their area. It gives them power to demand safety certificates from the owners of reservoirs and to require remedial works to be done when necessary to ensure safety. The Act is an extremely important safeguard for ordinary members of the public.
Despite the importance of the safety factors, subsection (4) of clause 8 would prevent the Reservoirs Act 1975 from coming into force in the GLC area and the metropolitan counties at least until 1986. Any delay in bringing the 1975 Act into force in those areas would extend the period during which the inhabitants of those areas are at risk. During that period the 1930 Act will apply. If that Act had been sufficient to tackle the problems, the 1975 Act would not have been passed.
In the GLC and metropolitan county areas, the power which, in the rest of the country, will be exerted by the county councils will devolve upon the London boroughs and the metropolitan districts. There must be considerable doubt about whether the expertise necessary to the


undertaking of the important safety functions will exist in those bodies. Clearly it exists in the county councils, but it may not exist at the lower level. In any case, I wonder how many of the London boroughs contain a reservoir. I understand that there are about a hundred reservoirs in Manchester, responsibility for the safety of which will devolve upon the metropolitan districts in Greater Manchester. Operating such powers at the lower tier of a two-tier system will result in extra cost, duplication and bureaucracy and, I would suggest, less effective supervision. Boroughs with reservoirs will, no doubt, have to appoint reservoir safety officers and reservoir departments, when the job could be done much more effectively by retaining power at county level. This issue underlines the Government's shortsightedness in abolishing authorities that operate over a wider area and pool expertise in such technical problems. What the Government are doing will not reduce costs, but rather increase them and I therefore have pleasure in commending the amendment to the Committee.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Amendment No. 108 incorporates many of the alliance's objections to the Bill. A new bureaucracy, in the form of joint boards, will have to be established to deal with reservoir safety. It is a prime example of the wasteful change that will result from the Bill.
The Government are also introducing a more indirect method of administering safety measures in regard to reservoirs. Such services can be provided much better and more responsively by directly elected bodies. We therefore oppose what the Government are doing on democratic grounds.
Moreover, an obvious regional responsibility is being ignored. The new administration will be responsible for reservoirs that are not neatly situated in district areas. They serve regions and therefore responsibility for them should lie with an elected body that covers the region concerned, not an appointed board. In this regard, our three objections to the Bill emerge once again—more indirect administration, more duplication and wasteful bureaucracy and regional responsibility being given to bodies that are not regional.
The importance of this part of the Bill should not be underestimated. Reservoirs are used by many thousands of adults and young people for fishing, sailing and other recreational purposes. Those of us who have young children know the anxiety felt by parents when their children go off to use such facilities. Therefore, it is only right that parents should be satisfied that they can have confidence in the administration proposed.

Mr. Freud: Does my hon. Friend accept that the knock-on effect of an ill-used and ill-maintained reservoir will be felt by all Members of Parliament with fishing in their constituencies? At present, many people fish in reservoirs in London and the metropolitan counties.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Yes. I was a little concerned about what my hon. Friend was going to say when he referred to a "knock-on effect", but I gather that he is referring to the fact that fishermen travel all over the country to use the facilities offered by rivers and, in particular, reservoirs. In London and other metropolitan areas different types of fishing are available to fishermen from all over the country in different seasons.
I was thinking in particular not of adult anglers, but young children. After all, the amendment is concerned with safety, and such facilities are now used quite extensively—and many of us have pressed for this over the years—by young people. Parents want to be reassured that those facilities are properly maintained, that proper safety standards are laid down, and that there is someone to go to—now their locally elected county councillor—when they have a problem. Members of Parliament listen to complaints and anxieties in their surgeries and, similarly, parents want someone to go to who is responsible to them. If they are not satisfied with the facilities, they can have the matter raised, and do something about it.
For all those reasons, we want the Government to accept the amendment. I hope that the Minister can reassure the Committee that the safety provisions will be maintained and that the Government accept the very real anxieties that we have expressed.

Mr. Penhaligon: I find the amendment particularly interesting. Before being elected to the House, I used to work as an engineer with a mining company. At times I was involved in checking soil stability. I have done some work with civil engineers who are responsible for analysing the data obtained from such experimentation, and for making estimates of the safety of dams and the concrete structures from which they are made. The awesome task of saying that the reservoirs are structurally safe could well belong to more than one authority.
Reservoirs and rivers have some connection with one another, and rivers often form the boundary between authorities. Therefore, it might be common to have a reservoir between two authorities. As I understand the clause, one borough authority might be responsible for half the reservoir, and another authority responsible for the other half. It is difficult to imagine a greater folly.
With some experience of such calculations, I could imagine that one authority would say that it was safe to fill the reservoir to 63 ft and the other authority would say that it was safe to fill it to only 58 ft. The Minister must recognise that that would present some problems to district authorities. Someone must be given the responsibility for making those calculations, not least because some of the equipment needed to analyse small movements, stress in concrete and structural and sub-soil safety can be expensive. I have no doubt that my former company will be pleased if the clause is passed, because it can then set about selling much equipment. But the present position is preposterous.
I imagine that the Minister has studied this matter in great detail, but has he ever discovered the means by which small movements in concrete relative to large stresses behind them are analysed? It is important for the Committee to understand this in some depth. If the Minister is not aware of how that is analysed, I might be able to rake my memory and tell him. In essence, one must attach to the concrete at an appropriate moment a strain gauge of a non-wire type that can be stretched over a large distance. Someone then has the responsibility—[Interruption.] My colleagues here are laughing, but this is an extremely important technical matter. I am often frustrated by the House's attitude to any technical matter that is brought to its attention. At 4.41 am, strain gauges in dams are not a subject that I expected to have the opportunity to bring to the attention of the Committee. But


it is a serious problem, and serious tragedies can result. I recall that in France a few years ago reservoirs were known to collapse.
I hope that the Minister can say in reply who will be responsible for saying that a reservoir is structurally safe and strong. It is lunacy to contemplate a position whereby two authorities are responsible for doing that. If the Minister's intention is to give one authority the finite responsibility for making the measurements that I mentioned, he should say how that will be done under the Bill.
This is not just a matter of structural safety. There are few matters that cause greater rows in my area than that of access to fishing rights on reservoirs. It is one of the new, great sports. I can envisage that one authority will try to build the stock of fish in a reservoir, and will regularly and enthusiastically use its ratepayers' money to stock it with trout, or whatever may be the fancy of fishermen in the area. However, the authority on the other side of the reservoir might take the opposite view—

Mr. Tony Banks: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because I was once a keen angler. I gave up the sport because I believed that it might be cruel. What is the hon. Gentleman's opinion about how cruel angling is?

Mr. Penhaligon: Much as I wish to help those hon. Members who represent metropolitan areas, the hon. Gentleman can hardly expect me, when about 3,000 of my constituents rely on fishing for their living, to become involved in such a debate. I would prefer the Committee to concentrate its mind on the position that I outlined earlier, with different authorities having different policies for the stocking of the reservoirs on their boundaries.
I mentioned the possibility of one authority deciding that the stock needed building up and the other taking the opposite view. Another possibility is that the authorities may differ as to the kind of fish required, one taking the view that pike is ideal while the other decides on trout. As anyone with any knowledge of these matters knows, that will doubtless increase the population of pike in the reservoir but the authority that spent a great deal of money investing in a stock of trout will certainly not be satisfied with the result.

Mr. Corbyn: Before leaving the analogy of the pike and the trout, would the hon. Gentleman care to reflect on whether, comparatively speaking, the GLC and the Government should be regarded as pike and trout or vice versa?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member reflects on that he will be out of order.

Mr. Penhaligon: I should not dream of doing so, Mr. Armstrong. I am making a serious point. As a matter of fact, I do not know of any authority which actually stocks a reservoir with pike, but I see no technical reason why that should not be done as many anglers find pike extremely good fishing.
I may not have treated this with the seriousness that it requires, but the basic point is very simple. There can be no greater insanity than authorities that are responsible for the safety, exploitation or leisure aspects of one reservoir

being able to take opposing views. It is certainly not possible to control the movement of fish within a reservoir. It might be possible to have sailing on one side and speedboat racing on the other, although there would be difficulties at the margin due to the movement of the water, and so on.
The Minister must tell the Committee precisely who will be responsible for the reservoirs and for the important issues that I have raised—technology, exploitation policy, leisure, fishing and safety. The Bill is neither clear nor satisfactory on that point.

Sir George Young: I begin by giving a direct answer to the last question. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) will be pleased to know that under the Reservoirs Act 1975 reservoir undertakers will be required to appoint a named supervising engineer to keep each reservoir under continual supervision between inspections at intervals not greater than 10 years. When the hon. Gentleman loses his seat to the Conservatives at the next election, in view of his experience in these matters I shall use what influence I can to try to find him a suitable job in that area.
The amendment seeks to remove a good housekeeping provision for no good reason at all. I have to tell the alliance that it is one of the least plausible amendments in the entire Committee stage. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is a Labour amendment."] The Labour party had the good sense not to move it.
The Government wish to implement in full the Reservoirs Act 1975 with as little delay as possible. That Act, however, will confer new functions and responsibilities on local authorities. It would be pointless and a waste of work to give new functions to the GLC and the metropolitan county councils before a decision has been taken on abolition. The obvious solution is to go ahead with implementation in the shire counties but to delay implementation in the GLC and metropolitan counties pending Parliament's decision on abolition.
As it stands, however, the 1975 Act can be implemented only by order applying to the whole of Great Britain at the same time. All that this relatively innocuous subsection does it to allow implementation in different areas at different times. That means that we can avoid abortive work without introducing unnecessary delay in areas unaffected by abolition proposals. We are so confident that this part of the Bill stands on its own that we have specifically excluded it from the repeal provisions in part I, clause 1(2). It is not undemocratic as the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) said because the powers will be discharged by the borough councils, not the joint boards. Therefore, councillors will be answerable for this proposal. On those grounds I hope that the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) will not press the amendment to a Division.

Mr. Cartwright: I listened with interest to the Minister's reply. It has been an extremely interesting and useful debate. It covered an area which is wider than I expected it to be when I tabled the amendment. I disagree with the Minister in that I believe that the debate fully justified the official Opposition tabling the amendment. It also throws doubt on their wisdom for deserting it, together with the House, the debate and the issue.
The Minister has still not dealt with the two important issues arising from the amendment. First, in the interim


period before abolition, if it takes place, the standard of reservoir safety enforcement in the greater London council area and the metropolitan counties will be different because of the subsection. Those areas will still operate under the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act 1930. The notes on clauses provided by the Government say that in the interim period the 1930 Act will apply in the GLC areas and the metropolitan counties. That is obviously inferior protection to the Reservoirs Act 1975. Therefore, for a comparatively short interim period two levels of safety enforcement will operate—a higher level in the rest of the country and a lower one in the GLC area and metropolitan counties.
If abolition takes place, the enforcement powers in the GLC area and the metropolitan counties will be exercised at borough and district level. I am sad that the Minister did not attempt to tackle the problem that enforcement at that level involves a host of individual authorities taking on what should be an overall supervisory responsibility. The Minister has not allayed our fears about the subsection and, therefore I strongly urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes, 21, Noes, 211.

Division No. 319]
[4.52 am


AYES


Alton, David
Meadowcroft, Michael


Ashdown, Paddy
Michie, William


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Penhaligon, David


Barron, Kevin
Sedgemore, Brian


Cartwright, John
Skinner, Dennis


Cohen, Harry
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Fisher, Mark
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Freud, Clement



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Madden, Max
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Marek, Dr John
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Maxton, John





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Simon


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cope, John


Amess, David
Couchman, James


Arnold, Tom
Cranborne, Viscount


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dorrell, Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bellingham, Henry
Dover, Den


Bendall, Vivian
Dunn, Robert


Berry, Sir Anthony
Emery, Sir Peter


Best, Keith
Evennett, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fallon, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Farr, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Favell, Anthony


Bottomley, Peter
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forth, Eric


Bright, Graham
Franks, Cecil


Brinton, Tim
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Freeman, Roger


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Gale, Roger


Bruinvels, Peter
Galley, Roy


Bulmer, Esmond
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Butterfill, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodlad, Alastair


Cash, William
Gorst, John


Chope, Christopher
Greenway, Harry


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gregory, Conal


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)





Grist, Ian
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Parris, Matthew


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hanley, Jeremy
Pawsey, James


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Porter, Barry


Harris, David
Powell, William (Corby)


Harvey, Robert
Powley, John


Haselhurst, Alan
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Raffan, Keith


Hawksley, Warren
Renton, Tim


Hayes, J.
Rhodes James, Robert


Hayhoe, Barney
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Heddle, John
Roe, Mrs Marion


Henderson, Barry
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hickmet, Richard
Rowe, Andrew


Hirst, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Ryder, Richard


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Holt, Richard
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hooson, Tom
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Howard, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Howarth, Alan (Stratfd-on-A)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Sims, Roger


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hunter, Andrew
Speller, Tony


Jackson, Robert
Spencer, Derek


Jessel, Toby
Squire, Robin


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Stanley, John


Key, Robert
Stern, Michael


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Knowles, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lang, Ian
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Lawrence, Ivan
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sumberg, David


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Lightbown, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lilley, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Terlezki, Stefan


Lord, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


McCrea, Rev William
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Thornton, Malcolm


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Tracey, Richard


Maclean, David John
Trippier, David


Major, John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Malins, Humfrey
Viggers, Peter


Malone, Gerald
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Maples, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Marland, Paul
Walden, George


Mates, Michael
Wall, Sir Patrick


Mather, Carol
Waller, Gary


Maude, Hon Francis
Ward, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Warren, Kenneth


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Watson, John


Mellor, David
Watts, John


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wheeler, John


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Whitney, Raymond


Moate, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Moore, John
Wilkinson, John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Wood, Timothy


Murphy, Christopher
Woodcock, Michael


Needham, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Nelson, Anthony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Nicholls, Patrick



Norris, Steven
Tellers for the Noes:


Osborn, Sir John
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Ottaway, Richard
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Page, John (Harrow W)

Question accordingly negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50 (Debate on clause or schedule standing part). That the clause stand part of the Bill:

The Committee divided: Ayes 207, Noes 21.

Division No. 320]
[5.02 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hanley, Jeremy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Amess, David
Harris, David


Arnold, Tom
Harvey, Robert


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Haselhurst, Alan


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Batiste, Spencer
Hawksley, Warren


Bellingham, Henry
Hayes, J.


Bendall, Vivian
Hayhoe, Barney


Berry, Sir Anthony
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Best, Keith
Heddle, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Henderson, Barry


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hickmet, Richard


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hind, Kenneth


Bottomley, Peter
Hirst, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Holt, Richard


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hooson, Tom


Bright, Graham
Howard, Michael


Brinton, Tim
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Bruinvels, Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Butterfill, John
Hunter, Andrew


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Jackson, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jessel, Toby


Cash, William
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Chope, Christopher
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Key, Robert


Clark, Sir W, (Croydon S)
King, Roger (B'ham N'fleld)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Coombs, Simon
Knowles, Michael


Cope, John
Lang, Ian


Couchman, James
Lawler, Geoffrey


Cranborne, Viscount
Lawrence, Ivan


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dorrell, Stephen
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lightbown, David


Dover, Den
Lilley, Peter


Dunn, Robert
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lord, Michael


Evennett, David
Lyell, Nicholas


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McCrea, Rev William


Fallon, Michael
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Farr, John
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Favell, Anthony
Maclean, David John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Major, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Malins, Humfrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Malone, Gerald


Forth, Eric
Maples, John


Franks, Cecil
Marland, Paul


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Maude, Hon Francis


Freeman, Roger
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gale, Roger
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Galley, Roy
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mellor, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Gorst, John
Moate, Roger


Greenway, Harry
Moore, John


Gregory, Conal
Moynihan, Hon C.


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Murphy, Christopher


Grist, Ian
Needham, Richard


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neubert, Michael





Nicholls, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, J.


Norris, Steven
Sumberg, David


Osborn, Sir John
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Parris, Matthew
Terlezki, Stefan


Pawsey, James
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Porter, Barry
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Powley, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Proctor, K. Harvey
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Raffan, Keith
Tracey, Richard


Renton, Tim
Trippier, David


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Viggers, Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rowe, Andrew
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Walden, George


Ryder, Richard
Wall, Sir Patrick


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Waller, Gary


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Ward, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Watson, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Sims, Roger
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wheeler, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Whitfield, John


Speller, Tony
Wiggin, Jerry


Spencer, Derek
Wilkinson, John


Squire, Robin
Wood, Timothy


Stanbrook, Ivor
Woodcock, Michael


Stanley, John
Yeo, Tim


Stern, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)



Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mr. Carol Mather and


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)





NOES


Alton, David
Meadowcroft, Michael


Ashdown, Paddy
Michie, William


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Penhaligon, David


Barron, Kevin
Sedgemore, Brian


Beith, A. J.
Skinner, Dennis


Cohen, Harry
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Fisher, Mark
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Freud, Clement



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Noes:


Madden, Max
Mr. John Cartwright and


Marek, Dr John
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Maxton, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL CONSULTATION

Mr. David Alton: I beg to move amendment No. 90, in clause 9, page 41, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (1A) below'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 122, 42, 109, 91 and 123.

Mr. Alton: I draw the attention of the Committee to the purpose of clause 9. All hon. Members will probably be supportive of the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1982, which allows electors to question the auditor, and to take a local authority to court, if they so


desire. Clause 9 attempts to extend that power to constituent councils. This can have somewhat bizarre consequences, as I hope to point out.
If the clause remains unamended, it could mean that in areas where there is a split in the political balance, great confusion could be caused to the electors and councillors. On Merseyside, for example, five councils will comprise the metropolitan county area once this measure is enacted. Of those five district councils, three will be controlled by the Labour party and two by the Conservatives.
5.15 am
If an area has a Conservative majority—which, as I say. is not the case on Merseyside—and the interim authority spends too much, those councillors will challenge every item and be disruptive on every possible occasion. We saw an example of that during the "Fares fair" campaign in London in the Tory-controlled authority of Bromley. The clause as drafted will be a lawyers' paradise and will enable many Conservative-controlled authorities to do very much what happened in Bromley on that occasion. The whole system will be open to political abuse. That will cause confusion and chaos, which is all part of the general vendetta that the Government have been waging against local authorities.
Paradoxically, in an area such as Merseyside, with a Labour majority in the interim authority, the scope for decisions prejudicial to the best interests of local ratepayers will be at its greatest. The clause will give enormous power to local councillors who see their role as being purely to disrupt. Ironically, the clause will hand over to people such as Councillor Derek Hatton, the militant deputy leader of Liverpool city council, power to give instructions to the interim authority. Further, it will be incumbent on that authority to consult people such as Mr. Hatton, who has made it clear that his job and that of his colleagues is to bankrupt that authority and to take illegal action regardless of the cost to local ratepayers.
Imagine what the clause will mean for councillors who do not flinch from proposing illegal, bankrupting budgets for their councils. Consider what they will make of this opportunity. The possibilities are endless. There might, for instance, be a veto on spending on police matters, an aspect which inevitably will have to be covered by the interim authority. Such issues will be open to negative and destructive policies being put forward by people who see their role as one of creating the maximum mischief and chaos.

Mr. Bill Michie: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that people should not be permitted to cause mischief and chaos. It has, however, been the role of Liberals in local government to take authorities to task on virtually every issue, even over a cracked pavement. Liberals have always exploited that situation. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that that opportunity to disrupt should be removed?

Mr. Alton: There are bound to be times when councillors will wish to champion the causes of their local community, and it is legitimate for them to do that. It is illegitimate for councillors and local authorities to decide to break the law and run the local authority into bankruptcy. Some councillors have stated that, if they do not get their way, there will be riots. They say that there is no point in local government because the future is on the streets rather than in the council chambers. It is apparent

that they are not interested, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) seems to think, in democracy. They are interested in creating the maximum amount of chaos. It is no surprise to anyone who has studied the outpourings of Militant Tendency that it frequently talks about the need to create chaos, because from chaos and disorder will come the things that they wish to pursue. If that were not the case, why have the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and his colleagues been expelling such people from the Labour party in his constituency?

Mr. Straw: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that matter. Four of the people expelled from the Blackburn branch of the Labour party attended the count on 3 May for the municipal elections as scrutineers for the SDP-Liberal alliance. I possess a letter from the returning officer for Blackburn, Clifford Singleton. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is worrying that members of the Militant Tendency are now teaming up with the SDP-Liberal alliance? What exactly will the SDP-Liberal alliance do to clean up the Blackburn branch of the SDP-Liberals?

Mr. Alton: I am sure that the Committee will have been amused by the light relief introduced by the hon. Gentleman. If the SDP-Liberal alliance is subject to infiltration in the way in which he described, that is obviously a matter about which I would be most concerned. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for handing me some corroborative evidence, which we shall certainly investigate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ensure that the same action that he was prepared to see taken against the militants in his constituency will be taken against those people who are deliberately trying to bankrupt Liverpool and to bring it to its knees. This is not the light, flippant, humorous matter that the hon. Gentleman tried to make it; for people living in Liverpool it is a serious matter.

Mr. Straw: I have handed the hon. Gentleman a copy of the letter from the chief executive of the borough of Blackburn confirming that the four people named in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph on Friday 11 May — Rossina Harris, Kay Wright, Mary Orange and Des Mulcahy—
signed the Declaration of Secrecy on 30 April, 1984 as part of the SDP-Liberal nominees for the Brookhouse Ward.
The letter goes on the say that Mr. Ronald O'Keeffe, who is a past president of the Blackburn chamber of trade,
acted as a Justice of the Peace in countersigning the Declaration.
This matter may be light relief in the context of this debate, but it is not a light matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not regard it as in the least trivial that the SDP-Liberals in the Brookhouse ward of Blackburn should take members of Militant Tendency unto their bosom. I look forward to a statement from the hon. Gentleman that there will be an inquiry by the SDP-Liberal alliance at the national level about what has been going on.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We have seen how we can get into deep water if we get away from the amendment. I ask the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) to stick to the amendment.

Mr. Alton: Despite the red herring that the hon. Member for Blackburn tried to introduce into the debate, he raised a serious point, which I hope will be thoroughly


investigated. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will disown those people who have deliberately tried to bankrupt Liverpool. Under clause 9 the type of policies and methods that they have been promoting will become everyday practice, not just in Liverpool but in areas such as Manchester.
It is worth noting, in the context of the clause, that the current dispute in the city of Liverpool has already cost the ratepayers about £2 million as a direct result of money being paid to moneylenders to run services in the absence of a rate being levied. That shows the direct irresponsibility, negligence and failure to exercise fiduciary duty of the councillors inolved. The more the mischief, the merrier the militants.
That is the case not only in Liverpool but in other parts of the north-west. The hon. Member for Blackburn should be aware that only last night in the city of Manchester, the new Left-wing faction expelled all moderates — all Liberals, and all Conservatives—from the policy and finance committee of Manchester city council, just as the militants in Liverpool expelled all opposition councillors from personnel committees and school managing and governing bodies. Yet we will give the opportunity to those people, under clause 9, to have some say over the financing of the new interim authorities and the financing and running of bodies such as the police authorities.
Those left-wing people are not interested in tolerance, or in allowing others to put their own point of view. They are interested in maximum chaos and in using local authorities as a Marxist battering ram, a stalking horse against Government policy. They are interested only in manufacturing crises, and will use every opportunity that the legislation affords to have a field day. They will do that as a result of clause 9.
We have other reservations about the clause. Clause 7 provides for the full transfer of information to the boroughs and the districts, and the component parts of the new interim authorities. Therefore, much of clause 9 is purely repetitive. I refer the Committee to clause 7, which states that
The Greater London Council and its officers shall furnish the Secretary of State, any London borough council and the Common Council with all such information relating to the Greater London Council or its functions as the Secretary of State or that London borough council or the Common Council may request.
Similarly, clause 7(3) states—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not discuss clause 7. We are discussing amendments to clause 9.

Mr. Alton: Indeed. I seek to draw the Committee's attention to a repetitive part of clause 9, which has already been dealt with by the Committee in clause 7. I have done that to illustrate that the legislation has been rushed through with indecent haste, mainly because the Government are not prepared to accept any drafting amendments, as has been made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), as they know that if they accept any amendments, a Report stage will be required. It is just an abuse of the House and its procedures to proceed in the way that the Government have done.
Furthermore, clause 9 is lopsided. The duty is imposed on the interim authorities to consult and take note of the

views of the boroughs or the districts, but no similar duty is imposed on the boroughs or the districts to take note of the views or wishes of the interim authorities. Why should they not have the same rights as the borough and the district councils, as outlined in clause 9? That would be fairer and more balanced, but of course the Government are not really interested in either of those virtues.
I once served on a metropolitan county council in Merseyside between 1973 and 1976. Before that I served for a year on the old unitary authority of Liverpool city council. Therefore, I was in the advantageous position of being able to judge the effects prior to reorganisation and afterwards. The House was profoundly misguided ever to have enacted the 1973 legislation.
I opposed that legislation when I was a member of that old unitary authority in 1972. I believed that a two-tier approach was unnecessary, costly and cumbersome. The House was mistaken in enacting that legislation. It is apparent that the Government are showing little humility in recognising the mistake that previous Conservative Governments made, and many of us who might be inclined to support the abolition of the identity crisis councils—the MCCs — which are neither local nor regional government, find it difficult to swallow legislation couched in such terms as clause 9, and legislation that abolishes elections and the one regional authority—the GLC—that we already have.
5.30 am
When I was a member of that MCC, it horrified me to see the amount of duplication and waste. I give the example of highways, which is relevant to clause 9 because the same problems will apply if this clause is enacted. If one of our constituents were to approach us and ask for a bollard to be placed in a back entry to a street that runs down the back of people's homes, probably because of cars running through and short-cut traffic, one would have to go through a cumbersome procedure.
First, one would approach the local council — the district council in the case of Liverpool. A man in a white coat from the highways and byways department would come along, and probably take some Conservative Members away, but more likely he would measure up to see where a bollard could be appropriately placed in the back entry. If he agreed with the person who made the complaint, the bollard might eventually be erected.
Before that happens, the request has to go to a meeting of the highways and byways sub-committee where the members consider the views of the engineer. If it makes a recommendation, it goes to the highways and environment committee of the council. If that committee agrees with the recommendations of the sub-committee, and the recommendation of the engineer, the decision goes on up to a meeting of the city council. Some 99 councillors sit around and the civic chairman—they abolished our mayor and are doing the same in a number of other local authorities—bangs the gavel, and the council decides that that bollard should be placed in the back entrance.
However, that is not the end of the matter, because the decision is referred to the Merseyside—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that the amendment is directed to accounts and financial consultation. He is taking us rather wide of the amendment.

Mr. Alton: I refer to this because the consultations and costs involved in future will prove similar to those in the procedure that I am outlining.
This matter does not end with the decision of the city council— it goes on to the MCC, and then passes to another three tiers. It goes to a general purposes traffic management sub-committee, which considers the recommendation of the city council. The matter is then referred on to the highways, tunnels and airports committee, where another group of councillors consider the recommendations of the sub-committee. A few more weeks pass in a process that has already taken some months, and the matter is then referred to another 99 councillors, who meet in the Merseyside county council.
Six local government layers later, the gavel is brought down, a decision is achieved in the MCC and it is decided that a bollard can be placed in the back entry. Usually, traffic management orders are referred to the Department of the Environment, so the matter is referred to Piccadilly plaza—Manchester being one of Liverpool's better-class suburbs. Ultimately, it is referred to the Department of the Environment in London in Marsham street. Two central Government layers later, authority may be given for the bollard to be placed in the back entry. So, 18 months and a lot of old bollards later, a man comes out in a white coat with a wheel barrow and—

The First Deputy Chairman: This is an interesting tale, but I am sure that the Committee will be interested to know to which amendment the hon. Gentleman is referring.

Mr. Tracey: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong.
If this is a matter of interest to the Liberals, why did they not table an amendment?

The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Alton: We were so pleased with amendments tabled by the official Opposition that we did not want to risk them not being debated. Although only five members of the official Opposition are here at this time, we are grateful to them for giving us the opportunity to discuss bollards.

Mr. Straw: I am sure that the public will wish to make their own judgments about whether a concession on amendment No. 40 and the withdrawal of the undertaking to withdraw the subsection that would have suspended the operation of the local government boundary commission during the Bill, is more important than this trivial discussion about bollards at back entrances—which even the hon. Gentleman cannot remotely make serious.

Mr. Alton: Perhaps a rather tender nerve has been touched. The hon. Gentleman well realises that the cosy wheeling and dealing that takes palce in a hole in the corner, to which he may have been privy but to which other hon. Members are not privy, means that no decision has been taken through the usual channels to ensure that democracy will be preserved. If a few trinkets have been handed to the Opposition, and if the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has been bought off by the harlots on the Conservative Benches—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark.

Mr. Alton: Perhaps I should not have gone so far. I am sure that you, Mr. Armstrong, will understand that

members of what is now regarded as the real Opposition have become angry at the cavalier approach of the official Opposition. For that reason, perhaps my temper got the better of me.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of how cheaply the official Opposition have been bought off, did he have time to read an interesting account in the newspapers—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to a specific amendment.

Mr. Alton: I did have time to read the interesting report, which I commend to hon. Members. In the meantime—

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of the amendments—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is referring to one of the amendments.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I am indeed, Mr. Armstrong. As you allowed the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to intervene, I am sure that it is in order for me to do so.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I understood that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was referring to one of the amendments.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: As you allowed the hon. Member for Blackburn to intervene, Mr. Armstrong, I am sure that it is in order for me to comment on the matter that he raised.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I understood that the hon. Gentleman was intervening on something that is wide of the amendment.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: If I could correct the mistaken impression given in my response to the intervention—is it not true that the cosmetic agreement that has been reached between the two Front Benches is to hide the fact that Labour Members were not prepared to stay tonight to oppose the legislation and try to see it fail?

Mr. Alton: My hon. Friend is leading the Committee to the truth. A sordid deal has been conducted in the usual way between the Government and the official Opposition to let the official Opposition off the hook because their Members wanted to go home to bed. The alliance is determined to fight for the rights of local government. That is why we are here.
I redirect the attention of the Committee to clause 9. The clause is typical of the Bill, in that it does little about local democracy and much to place yet more powers in the hands of the Secretary of State and of unelected cabals. We would have sought far more radical legislation. I would happily have seen the shire counties abolished, as well as the metropolitan counties, if they had been replaced by genuine regional government—by a federal system of government.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a clause stand part speech. He is not referring to the amendments. He must speak to the amendments.

Mr. Alton: If I catch your eye later on, Mr. Armstrong, I shall be happy to return to that issue.
Subsection (2) of clause 9 is an example of ill-conceived and ill-considered draftsmanship. It states that consultation is to take place, but it does not state how that consultation is to take place.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Subsection (2) is covered by amendment No. 44, which we have not yet reached. The hon. Gentleman should reserve his speech for the occasion.

Mr. Alton: I shall be happy to return to that matter later on as well, Mr. Armstrong, if I have an opportunity, and so will my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).
Subsection (3) of clause 9 states:
The Greater London Council and each metropolitan county council shall—

(a) comply with the duty imposed by subsection (2) above before it determines for the purposes of section 11 of the General Rate Act 1967 the amount of its total estimated expenditure for the financial year mentioned in that subsection".
It is not clear how that is to be done or precisely what the liabilities of the local authority are to be. There could well be deliberate filibustering by some of the constituent authorities of the new interim authorities. Some of those authorities may go out of their way to try to ensure that the good governance of many of the municipalities is undermined.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could have managed a better filibuster if there had been more than eight hon. Members on his Benches. What sort of Opposition is that?

Mr. Alton: If 30 per cent. of Conservative Members were present, I would be more impressed by the hon. Gentleman's argument.
Clause 9 is entirely consistent with the character of the Bill. It provides those of us who might have had some sympathy with the Government's declared original intention with an insight into their real motives. Political expediency and spite seem paramount in their considerations. If the Prime Minister were not so obsessed with the leader of the GLC, we might be involved in a more rational and fundamental reform of the way in which we govern ourselves.
Miraculously, the right hon. Lady has transformed the leader of the GLC—who will no doubt rub his hands with glee when he sees how clause 9 has been drafted—into a political folk hero. Given the unpopularity of Mr. Livingstone and the GLC just two years ago, that is quite extraordinary. The Government should have spent more time running the country and less time trying to run the GLC, and Mr. Livingstone should spend less time trying to run the country and more time trying to run the GLC.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that at least part of the popularity of Mr. Livingstone and the GLC stems from their successful policies? For example, "Fares Fair" and the travelcard have gained great support for the GLC among Londoners. It is not simply that Mr. Livingstone has benefited from the personal attacks made upon him by the Tory press and Mrs. Thatcher.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am trying hard to relate the debate to the amendments. When we come to

the clause stand part debate, I must bear in mind the fact that the hon. Gentleman has gone wide of the amendments.

Mr. Alton: The intervention of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) leads me even wider of the debate. I shall not reply to his point so as not to prejudice the debate on clause stand part.

Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that clause 9 is about accounts and financial information and the Secretary of State's unlimited power in that regard. Is he aware that the GLC is having an open week during which people can go to see how it works for London and to get financial information? If the Government want such information, should they not go across the river this week rather than put an unrestricted clause into the Bill?

Mr. Alton: If the Government want us to go and look at that information, I am sure that we could adjourn for half an hour.

Mr. Waldegrave: It would be of greater convenience if the hon. Gentleman went across to the other side of the river.

Mr. Alton: I do not think that I shall take the Minister's advice. Clause 9(4)—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat if he persists in making a clause stand part speech. There is nothing about subsection 4 in the amendments.

Mr. Alton: I referred to it because the amendment says—

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. A rather serious noise is coming from under our Bench. It does not appear to be a sedentary Member.

The First Deputy Chairman: It will be investigated.

Mr. Alton: I referred to subsection 4 because it was originally intended that no extra cost would fall on the members of the interim authorities should action against the GLC or metropolitan counties be embarked on. I am worried that the councils might have to bear vast costs when this lawyer's paradise or Pandora's box in clause 9 is opened. I hope that the Committee will support the amendments, as they would rationalise clause 9 and make it sensible and workable. If the Committee does not accept the amendments we hope to press the matter further in the debate on clause stand part.

Mr. Tony Banks: Unlike the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), I shall try to restrict my comments to the amendments and to what that part of clause 9 is all about. It is a further example of an attempt to load the dice and to go for overkill.
Those who understand the provisions of the Local Government Acts 1933 and 1972 and the Local Government Finance Act 1982 will know that they contain powers to allow any local government elector to inspect a local authority's accounts. The authority for doing that is that the local government elector has elected or played a part in electing the local authority through the ballot box. Thus there is a direct relationship between the challenger and the local authority being challenged. But, of course, under clause 9 the Government propose that the powers


vested through the local government elections should be extended to other authorities — each London borough and each metropolitan district council. Frankly, I should have thought that any challenge that the borough or district wished to make against the metropolitan authority could be made through the existing system of audit or through the courts.
Therefore, one has to attempt to understand, if one can, why the Government are writing in this additional power. One can only assume that they anticipate there being many problems with the local authorities, and that those local authorities will try to create problems for the successor authorities. If that is the case—I do not think that it necessarily will be—surely audit or the courts would have been sufficient to bring those erring metropolitan authorities to account.
In effect, the clause will set one elected public authority against another. London's ratepayers will have to fund the cases that are consequently raised. That seems most unfair. Mention has been made of the mendacious, vexatious, and vindictive charges made against the GLC by Bromley borough council. The "Fares Fair" policy was in the GLC's manifesto, but the challenges made by Bromley cost the Bromley ratepayers, who paid the cost of challenging the GLC, and the GLC ratepayers generally — including an element for Bromley — dearly. In the circumstances, it was the poor old ratepayers in London who had to pick up the tab for that particular piece of political vindictiveness launched by Bromley against the GLC.
Clause 9 could allow that to continue unrelentingly. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill was concerned about the possible effect — as he sees it — of Left-wing militants having a go. I am much more concerned about the Right-wing extremists who run councils such as Bromley and Westminster, who would undoubtedly try to take the GLC to court as often as possible and who would create as many difficulties as possible for that authority.

Mr. Corbyn: Over the past five years I have been concerned by the increasing use of the law against progressive local authorities. Can my hon. Friend give us some idea of the costs forced on the GLC through continuously having to defend itself by legal means since the present administration took office in 1981? Does not my hon. Friend think that this legislation, and in particular the clause, is likely to lead to further litigious activity and so to further heavy expenditure of public money on both sides? The only people to benefit, of course, will be those in the legal profession.

Mr. Banks: It would be difficult to put a precise figure on the costs incurred by the GLC in defending itself against actions brought by Bromley and Westminster councils. Although the Westminster council case did not come to court, the GLC had to take counsel's advice, which is very costly. My hon. Friend is correct to say that, since the judgment by the law lords on the "Fares Fair" policy, every committee paper of the GLC that involves expenditure has had to be subjected to legal consideration—to outside counsel—so that councillors could be sure that members at county hall were not being asked to vote for illegal measures. That has cost London ratepayers many hundreds of thousands of pounds, all of which has gone into the pockets of the lawyers. They are one of the greatest growth industries in the capital city, because of

the Government's determination to hedge round local authorities with restrictions which, for the safety of the councils, it is necessary to clear with legal advisers before they proceed. That is the effect that this legislation and the attacks upon local government are having on the relationship between councils and their officers.
That leads me to my third point, which relates to clause 9. It greatly increases the chances of council members being surcharged for taking decisions which the courts or, indeed, the district auditors judge to be illegal.

Mr. Corbyn: While my hon. Friend is dwelling on this aspect of the legislation, will he comment on the decisions made by the courts during the lifetime of the present GLC administration? It seemed to me that there was a clear intent by Bromley council's action and by the Government's lack of action to destroy the concept of a mandate given by the electorate to elected representatives in local authorities and instead to impose a decision of the judges, as was the case with the "Fares Fair" policy.

Mr. Banks: For a while the Law Lords' decision reduced London Transport's fare structure to chaos. This clause would lead to similar action being taken against the GLC on policies that it decided were in the interests of London ratepayers.
I have no doubt that people such as Lady Porter of Westminster council and Bromley borough council will seek to use clause 9 to its full effect, which will cost London ratepayers dear and will lead to further confusion in local government structure. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North was correct to say that there was much chaos following the law lords' decision. Instead of the Government being appalled by the chaos that was threatened in London's local government structure and in London Transport, the Prime Minister thought it a wonderful wheeze. I remember hearing her being interviewed and saying that it served the GLC right, and that it was all its fault. That is the irresponsibility of Conservative Members and their leader. She was delighted to see the chaos into which local government is descending under the legislation being imposed upon it. Clause 9 will bring further chaos and further risk of councillors being surcharged. Local government officials and councillors now face being dragged through the courts.
To avoid some of those obvious and unpleasant pitfalls, I encourage the Committee to support the amendments.

Mr. Waldegrave: The filibuster mounted by the alliance was one of the feebler efforts that I have heard in my time in the House. Those of us who, like my hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), have been present throughout this debate as well as the debates on the Rates Bill know a professional filibuster when we hear it. When the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) gets going, that is artistry. What we have heard from the Liberal party today was more of a shambles, although it perhaps allowed us to have a useful stand part debate in advance, despite your efforts to bring us back to the amendments, Mr. Armstrong. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—a far more formidable debater in these matters—indeed brought us back to the amendments, all of which concern subsection (1).
6 am
The reason for including clause 9(1) in the Bill is straightforward and sound. The borough councils,


common council and districts which will take on most of the functions of the GLC and the MCCs have a direct interest in the financial affairs of the upper tier authorities during the run-up to abolition. Therefore, it is only reasonable that they should have some access to, and rights to object to, accounts which will define the financial situation that they will eventually take over.
Subsection (1) merely gives constituent councils the same rights as electors to see the accounts, to question the auditor and to make objections. Those rights will apply to the constituent councils only for the years from 1983–84.

Mr. Tony Banks: If the borough and district councils in the metropolitan areas are to have rights equivalent to those of local ratepayers, why is not that principle extended to the shire districts, which are very interested in the shire precepts?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has been giving the answer to that question all night with threats of disruption and so on in the metropolitan areas. It is to enable the authorities in those areas to have some say in regard to rates and the kind of action promised by the hon. Gentleman that we take the view that a special situation exists.
Amendment No. 42 seeks to remove this useful and entirely reasonable provision for no good reason.
Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 attempt to make it mandatory for the courts to order a constituent council to pay all costs and expenses if an objection is not upheld. I assume that that is intended as a safeguard against nitpicking interference. There is no reason to expect that constituent councils will abuse their rights, but, even if they did, the courts already have a general power to award legal costs against any of the parties involved. The existing power is discretionary, whereas that proposed in the amendments would be mandatory. The discretion is important as there might be cases in which, although the upper tier authority was not found to be at fault, the constituent council was perfectly justified in bringing the case to appeal—for example, because the upper tier authority failed to provide all the facts. In such a case the court might decide that it would be inequitable to lay all the costs on the constituent council. The amendments would remove that discretion.
Amendment No. 91 also goes somewhat further than the existing ordinary discretionary power in that it would involve expenses as well as legal costs, as do the discretionary powers in the Local Government Finance Act 1982, but whereas a local elector's or auditor's expenses may be reasonably easy to assess, that would not be the case for local authority expenses and the precise administrative costs involved in processing an objection or appeal whould always be open to challenge. I am advised that the normal principle that costs follow the event would ensure that constituent councils would have to pay all legal costs if they were in the wrong. That is sufficient safeguard against spurious challenges. It would be quite wrong to remove the court's discretion in such matters.
Amendment No. 109 restricts the application of subsection (1) to the accounts for 1984–85. As the Bill stands, the rights would apply to accounts for the years 1983–84 to 1985–86 inclusive. Clearly the constituent councils will have a particular interest in the accounts for 1984–85 as it is the financial year preceding the transitional

councils, but the abolition proposals will have been very much in mind in 1983–84 and the existing upper tier councils will have the whole of April and the first week of May 1986 under their control, thus affecting the 1986–87 accounts.

Mr. Michie: I understood that constituent councils were democratically elected. I do not understand what the Minister means by constituent councils in this context. In debates in Sheffield and south Yorkshire about a year ago business men said that they should have more votes because they paid more rates than other electors. Is this one way of getting round that problem?

Mr. Waldegrave: It has nothing to do with that. The term "constituent councils" in this context means lower tier councils in the district or borough councils in the areas where the councils are to be abolished.
It is, therefore, entirely equitable and necessary that the constituent councils have access and the right to object to the audit of the accounts of all three financial years, as any one of them might contain attempts to frustrate the tasks of the successor authorities.
Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 would mean that the constituent councils would not be able to use the rights to see, question and object to upper tier budgets at audit on any matter on which they had been consulted under the provisions in clause 9. The argument for this change will be that if the constituent councils have been consulted they have no need to see the accounts later at audit, nor any ground to object, since they were involved in the preparation of the budgets. The duty laid on the upper tier councils is purely to consult. The constituent councils may therefore be able to influence the budgets, but they have no power to insist on anything, and the upper tier councils are not obliged to obtain agreement. Constituent councils would still need the rights conferred on them by clause 9(1) since the budgets may not have taken account of their views.
The amendments would mean that, once an upper tier council had consulted its constituent councils, which it might regard as no more than a formality, it would be free to make whatever budget it liked, without fear of the constituent councils being able to see and question it at audit. That cannot be in the best interests of the smooth transfer of functions.
All the amendments would, to a greater or lesser extent, deny or frustrate the constituent councils' exercise of rights which Parliament has already deemed reasonable and workable for local electors. I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.

Mr. Alton: I hope that the Committee will accept the amendments. It was ironic that the Minister referred to the smooth transfer of function because that must be the last thing to which the legislation has led. He had the temerity to suggest that the filibuster of Liberal Members—we would not describe it as such — was a shambles. Compared with the shambles of the legislation, our attempts to block it are professional. It is clear that the Minister and his hon. Friends, who are present seven hours after their expected bedtime, are growing increasingly tetchy.
The position of councils remains extraordinarily unclear. The Minister has not made any clearer what will happen to councillors who go to the district auditor and challenge a budget which has been drawn up by


component authorities in the Greater London council area or metropolitan counties. When they read our debates many councillors may worry that they could be liable for surcharge for a failure to fulfil their fiduciary duty.
Furthermore, the Minister made it clear that those matters are to be left to the courts' discretion. The situation could not be more unsatisfactory. Anything more unsatisfactory is hard to imagine. We are determining legislation, but are so unclear about its purpose that the Minister must admit that those matters will be left at the courts' discretion. That will create a lawyers' paradise, which is why we shall force the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 22, Noes 185.

Division No. 321]
[6.08 am


AYES


Alton, David
Maxton, John


Ashdown, Paddy
Meadowcroft, Michael


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Michie, William


Barron, Kevin
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Bruce, Malcolm
Penhaligon, David


Cohen, Harry
Randall, Stuart


Corbyn, Jeremy
Sedgemore, Brian


Fisher, Mark
Skinner, Dennis


Freud, Clement
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Kirkwood, Archibald
Tellers for the Ayes:


Madden, Max
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Marek, Dr John
Mr. John Cartwright.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet


Amess, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Franks, Cecil


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Gale, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
Galley, Roy


Berry, Sir Anthony
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Best, Keith
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodlad, Alastair


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gorst, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Greenway, Harry


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grist, Ian


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bright, Graham
Hanley, Jeremy


Brinton, Tim
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Brooke, Hon Peter
Harris, David


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bruinvels, Peter
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hawksley, Warren


Butterfill, John
Hayes, J.


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hayhoe, Barney


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Heddle, John


Chope, Christopher
Henderson, Barry


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hickmet, Richard


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hind, Kenneth


Coombs, Simon
Hirst, Michael


Cope, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Couchman, James
Holt, Richard


Cranborne, Viscount
Hooson, Tom


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howard, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Dover, Den
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Emery, Sir Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Evennett, David
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Jackson, Robert


Farr, John
Jessel, Toby


Favell, Anthony
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)





Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Ryder, Richard


Key, Robert
Sackville, Hon Thomas


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knowles, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lang, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Sims, Roger


Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Speller, Tony


Lightbown, David
Spencer, Derek


Lilley, Peter
Squire, Robin


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Stern, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lyell, Nicholas
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


McCrea, Rev William
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Sumberg, David


Maclean, David John
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Major, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Malins, Humfrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malone, Gerald
Terlezki, Stefan


Maples, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Maude, Hon Francis
Thornton, Malcolm


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tracey, Richard


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Trippier, David


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moate, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Moore, John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Waldegrave, Hon William


Murphy, Christopher
Walden, George


Needham, Richard
Wall, Sir Patrick


Nelson, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Nicholls, Patrick
Ward, John


Norris, Steven
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Osborn, Sir John
Warren, Kenneth


Ottaway, Richard
Watts, John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Parris, Matthew
Wheeler, John


Porter, Barry
Whitfield, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wiggin, Jerry


Powley, John
Wood, Timothy


Proctor, K. Harvey
Yeo, Tim


Raffan, Keith
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Renton, Tim



Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Roe, Mrs Marion
Mr. Carol Mather and


Rowe, Andrew
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 8, line 4, leave out subsection (2).

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 124, in page 8, line 17, leave out from 'consultation' to end of line 21.
No. 45, in page 8, line 23, leave out from 'instrument' to end of line 25 and insert
'and no such regulations shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.

Mr. Straw: By clause 9(2) the GLC and each metropolitan county council is required to consult its constituent councils—the metropolitan districts in the metropolitan areas and the London broughs in the GLC area—about its expenditure proposals and the financing of that expenditure during the year beginning 1 April 1985.
By clause 9(3)(c) the GLC and the metropolitan counties are required to make available to their boroughs and districts such information concerning their past and present expenditure and the financing of that expenditure


as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. By subsection (4) the regulation power is subject to the negative procedure and not the affirmative procedure of the House of Commons.
Amendment No. 44 operates to strike out subsection (2), amendment No. 124 operates to strike out subsection (3)(c) and amendment No. 45 introduces the affirmative procedure for the making of regulations under clause 9(3)(c).
We object to the proposal that is made in this part of the Bill because we believe that it is unconstitutional and will have a bizarre effect. Each local authority currently has to determine its own expenditure and then answer to its own electorate for that expenditure. At no stage during the discussions on the Rates Bill, as it then was, and the additional central control which the Government will take over local authorities under that measure was it suggested that an individual local authority should have a duty to consult its electors, either directly or indirectly, about its expenditure and consult another authority within its area. We believe that it would be unacceptable to change the present system.
Within the metropolitan counties and the GLC the metropolitan districts and the London boroughs have no electoral power to control the metropolitan counties or the GLC, and the Bill does not propose to give them any special power to do so. Those responsible for the GLC and the metropolitan county budgets are the councillors who are elected to those councils. To give a right of consultation to constituent cuncils would undermine the authority of elected councillors. If the Bill is enacted, these provisions will even undermine the authority of councillors who are nominated by the districts to serve on the successor boards that will operate during 1985–86. It is not proposed to give any similar rights to shire districts in respect of the budgets of shire county councils.
The GLC and the metropolitan counties are being singled out for an invidious form of interference by constituent councils which have no special need to interfere and no special powers to control the GLC and the metropolitan county council budgets. It is important for the Committee to bear in mind that no such power to interfere with the budgets of the old councils—those that disappeared on 1 April 1974—was given to the shadow authorities set up on 1973. I think that is an important precedent that the Government ought to follow. In making such a proposal, the Minister is without any precedent even from previous Conservative Governments.
The amendments would retain the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, in their relations with their constituent councils, in the same position that they are in at present, and in the same position in which the shire counties are to shire districts.
We regard the proposal as unconstitutional and unacceptable, even if every authority within a metropolitan area or within the GLC were of the same political complexion. We object to the idea that one tier of authority should have a right to interfere in another tier of authority. This is made doubly unacceptable because the proposal, as it stands, would give Conservative-controlled borough councils in London and district councils in the metropolitan areas the right to be consulted about the budgets of Labour-controlled county councils and the GLC. What purpose will be achieved by asking

Conservative councils to offer comments on a Labour council's budget, or by asking Labour councils to comment on the budget of a Conservative council? This may not have been the intention, but the effect is politically prejudiced. It adds nothing to the Bill that I can discern. It is an unnecessary imposition on the authorities, and the power given to the Secretary of State under clause 9(3) is an unacceptable power.

Mr. Ashdown: When a Government suddenly act totally out of character with what they have been doing hitherto, Opposition Members, of whatever party, have reason to become suspicious of what is being proposed. It is remarkable that the Government, who have shown no inclination or enthusiasm for consulting anybody about what they have been doing, or about what they have sought to impose upon the people and institutions of Britain, suddenly say in a Bill:
The Greater London Council and each metropolitan county council shall consult its constituent councils".
Not only have the Government changed their spots in advising consultation; they are positively imposing it. This comes from a Government who, as I shall prove, have a well-identified tendency to tyranny which is recognised throughout the country and which has been perfectly clearly expressed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Conservative Members may well shout, but they need only look at the results of the by-elections.
I observe that the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) has just left the Chamber—perhaps that is why. The constituents of Surrey, South-West are clear about the intentions of the Government, and the way in which they have been prepared to ride roughshod over the views of the people and constitutional institutions of Britain.
We have a Prime Minister who shows no intention to consult. Indeed, the people whom she might have consulted in Cabinet, and who might have given her views different from her own, have been banished to the Back Benches. She has stated clearly that she opposes the concept of consensus, which depends on consultation.
I am seeking to prove—I may have more success in doing that to Opposition Members, who have rather more open minds than Conservative Members—that there is a deep hypocrisy in this sudden imposition by a Government who have hitherto shown no intention to consult. What is the reason for their change of heart, if that is what it is?

Mr. Alton: Ask the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin).

Mr. Ashdown: I would, but I think that he is comatose to a point at which it would be impossible for him to reply.
The Government are now imposing consultation on the GLC and metropolitan councils — imposing it, not advising it—yet this is the same Government who did not consult the GCHQ work force about abandoning their union membership; who did not consult local councils about rate capping; who did not consult the GLC about its abolition; and who did not consult the GLC about the abolition of elections. I will not mention the miners because the NUM, not the Government, did not consult the miners, so we had better draw a small curtain over that. The Government did not consult the British Telecom workers about privatisation and they did not consult the


workers at the royal ordnance factories. The Government did not want to consult in those cases because they knew that they would have got a clear answer of no.

Mr. Cohen: When did the NCB and the Government consult the miners about closing pits, thereby taking away their jobs?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) were to answer that, he would be getting away from the subject of the amendment.

Mr. Ashdown: I would not wish to stray in such a way that would detract from the expedition of our business, Mr. Armstrong.
To impose consultation in this way is totally out of character for the Government. After all, they did not consult their partners in the EC on certain matters. If ever a Government had proved themselves consistently uninterested in consultation, they are in power now. From the Prime Minister down, through all their actions, the Conservatives have proved to be totally uninterested in consultation.
When I was asked to participate in this debate and when I read this provision about consultation, I wondered why we should oppose it, because participation and consultation are the stuff of the Liberal party. I am delighted that the council leaders in south Yorkshire felt that they should consult Labour hon. Members about their appalling attendance here. They are not present now, either. No doubt another postbag containing admonitions is wending its way to the Labour Whips' Office.
What worries us is that this aspect of the legislation is totally out of character for the Government. Have they, we wonder, undergone a sort of Pauline conversion? Is this the road to Damascus for the Conservatives? Have they suddenly decided to embrace the concept of consultation? I doubt it, especially as they are granting powers in this provision which have never been granted before, as the hon. Member for Blackburn pointed out.
Why have the Government done this?

Mr. Tony Banks: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's breakfast cereal speech—all snap, crackle and pop. I point out to the hon. Gentleman, because he has previously asked who forms the Opposition, that the Committee contains far more Labour than Liberal-SDP Members.

Mr. Ashdown: I do not intend to go down that line, Mr. Armstrong, because I am afraid that you would admonish me. I see that 30 per cent. of my hon. Friends and a depressing percentage of other hon. Members are in the Chamber. [Interruption.] I am delighted to see that we have managed to get some response from Conservative Members. Have the Government suffered a Pauline conversion? Is this their road to Damascus? Have they set a precedent for the rest of their legislation? We need to examine these matters. The clause is a mechanism not to consult, but to inhibit the capacity for the existing organs to do their job. In every case, with the exception of the GLC, the political colour of the nominated metropolitan councils will differ from that of most of the constituent councils. The Bill is a mechanism to control, obstruct and manipulate.
I hold no brief for the politics of Liverpool, but the Liverpool people elected the current council, whether we

like it or not. The Government are sufficiently powerful and free to use their so-called mandate to impose their will on other people without consultation, so what is their right to manipulate or control the mandate in the hands of the metropolitan councils? The figures show that every metropolitan council in England was elected with a higher share of the vote than that enjoyed by the Government. The Government received 42·5 per cent. of the vote—a landslide in the number of seats because of our ridiculous voting system—which is lower than the percentage won by every metropolitan council in England which the Government wish to manipulate through this so-called system of consultation.

Mr. Alton: The Committee might like to reflect on what happens when there is a tyranny of the minority. Reference has been made to Liverpool where in the municipal elections 100,000 people voted against the Labour party's policies and only 90,000 voted for them, yet the Labour party achieved an overall majority on the city council. It is not just a matter of the tyranny of a minority in this place, despite the fact that 34 per cent. of voters voted for the Government in the last election and two out of three did not vote for them. The same can happen in local government. Does my hon. Friend agree that the tyranny of the minority can occur in places such as Liverpool city council, just as it happens here?

Mr. Ashdown: I readily agree, but I think that you, Mr. Armstrong, would take me to task if I followed that line.
The legislation aims not for consultation but for control of all those who suffer from the sin of disagreeing with the Government. The Government are talking of consultation, so that the weight of opinion reflected in the councils will be countervailed in some sense by providing a right of consultation, which has never been granted before and to which the Government have shown themselves in every environment to be unsympathetic. Clause 9(2) is not aimed at consultation but is a cynical attempt to control those who have no less of a democratic mandate, but suffer from the singular sin, in the Government's eye, of daring to hold views different from the Government's views.
If one looks at it in detail, the proposal is revealed to be unworkable. We need to ask ourselves about the consultation. How will it take place? Who will be present? Will the people involved be the chairmen of the finance committees, or will the entire councils be involved? Will the consultations have due regard to the political balance of each of the constituent councils? The budgets are possibly the most strongly publicised areas of local government. Therefore, will the consultations take account only of the majority view on each council? Will they have regard to the minority view? Will the consultations be open to the public? As the joint boards have no direct democratic responsibility or accountability, one would imagine that it is especially important that arguments should be deployed in public. If the Minister is keen on consultation, will it be in public?

Mr. Alton: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the way in which consultation would take into account purely the views of the majority? Is that not one of the most disturbing features of the way in which it is proposed that consultation should take place? Only the views of the majority will be taken into account, and the legitimate views of the minority will be ignored.

Mr. Ashdown: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Minister will recall that that was one of the questions that I asked. Will there be a mechanism in the consultation process for the minority view to be heard? We should like to hear an answer to that question. Will the minutes and the papers of the consultation be published?

Mr. Alton: I am particularly concerned that my hon. Friend should emphasise this point. In the city of Liverpool, the Conservative party is a small party, and won only three out of 34 wards in that city at the elections. As it is such a tiny party, it is important that its views should be represented. I hope that my hon. Friend will emphasise that.

Mr. Ashdown: That is precisely one of the points that I should make. I believe sufficiently in democracy to believe that even, or perhaps especially, the Conservative party should have the right to representation on councils such as Liverpool city council, where its view might not be sufficiently expressed or heard.
We can ask other questions. Will the consultation procedures have regard to petitions that may be presented? There are further questions about the effectiveness of such consultations. For instance, what status will they have? What, if anything, are the GLC and metropolitan county councils supposed to do after the consultations, especially in view of the rebellious constitutional position espoused by some of the authorities concerned? In short—

Mr. Michie: Oh—in short?

Mr. Ashdown: It would be shorter if the hon. Gentleman let me conclude in the normal fashion.
Given the uncertain nature of the consultations, is this not another example of how the proposals will create the very thing that the Government have told us that they are against—more bureaucracy? It will cost more money than the existing structure.
One is led to the conclusion that the co-called consultation proposal is an attempt to emasculate the vestiges of these already emasculated councils. It is like taking a condemned man and roughing him up before sending him to the scaffold. Are the Government so frightened of what the rump of those organisations can do that they must tie them down by such controls and impose consultations that are not about consultation, but about limiting their power to do their job effectively?
As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, we are establishing something for which there is no precedent. It will now be an established process. It is a precedent that can now be used by other Governments. We know, for example, that the Labour party believes quite strongly that we should abolish the shire counties. There is nothing to stop them using the precedent that we are establishing to inhibit the operation of the shire counties and to tie them up with regulations and consultations.
This clause is not an attempt at consultation, but is a clear attempt by the Government to ensure that they have their way down to the last detail. First, they will abolish the elections and then they will so hamstring what is left that it becomes meaningless.

Mr. Alton: Before my hon. Friend moves on to another amendment, will he clarify one issue that is of concern to Liberals throughout the country who have fought for the right to petition their councils? Will he press the

Government to say whether petitions will be permitted as part of the consultation process when the Government and the new interim authorities consider such consultation during the procedures?

Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I mentioned that point, but his intervention will serve to reinforce my point.
Amendment No. 45 has been called a negative instrument. As we recognise, there are great constitutional issues at stake in the Bill. Any self-respecting Government committed to democracy would allow a full debate on such issues. We recognise that there is a good deal of public disagreement with what the Government are trying to do. This is another although perhaps smaller item in the catalogue of instruments for the repression of a full debate on these issues. We all know that a negative instrument is used to curtail debate and, along with other signs, this seems to show the weakness and bankruptcy of the Government's arguments. There is no reason why we should not bring this matter back to the House, and there is no need for a negative instrument. We have consistently opposed this, and my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has spoken against the use of the negative instrument. The Government do not need the negative instrument, and should not need to curtail debate on this subject.
Amendment No. 124 is on clause 9(3)(c), which is also something of a wolf in sheep's clothing. It looks like something tending towards a freedom of information Bill. A certain amount of information shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State. It is only financial information and not a broad aspect of information. For the first time, a Government who have consistently opposed a freedom of information Bill are having to prescribe information. The Secretary of State will lay down what forms of information will be provided. We have to look at what the Government are seeking to do in the light of their reputation.

Mr. Freud: Is it not the case that if one prescribes what information is available it is wrong to call this freedom of information?

Mr. Ashdown: My hon. Friend is right. Perhaps I should rephrase it to the providing of information. My hon. Friend is well known for having pursued the subject of freedom of information. That means free access to a range of information. In this case, the Secretary of State will say that certain information will be required. Under this Government, all information is limited and proscribed, so if some is prescribed that might look like freedom of information.
We know that the Government have no real interest in providing free access to information. We are worried that the clause could be used by the Secretary of State to prescribe ludicrously detailed information that is designed, once again, to hamstring and control the operation of the new authorities.
Someone might say that that is a rather ungenerous view. Why should we doubt the integrity of the Secretary of State? Why do we believe that he will act in that fashion? Why do we believe that he will act malevolently rather than benevolently? That is what has characterised everything about this legislation from start to finish. The Secretary of State and the Government have been prepared to use this legislation and other legislation in a way that has been blatantly vindictive. That will continue. We are


concerned that the Secretary of State will use this clause in a vindictive way. We distrust the Secretary of State and the Government who may misuse the clause in a damaging manner.
I do not have to tell hon. Members about our commitment to the freedom of information. We do not believe that the decisions about what information should be released should be in the hands of the Secretary of State. If the Government think that providing information is a good thing — if they have genuinely had the conversion to which I have referred—I ask the Minister to follow through the rhetoric.
When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will say that that is the principle that will be applied in broader areas. I do not expect him to say that he could support a freedom of information Bill. I want him to say that that is a principle that he wants to see carried forward. If he does not say that, and I suspect that he will not, we must reach the only conclusion that the intention is not to provide information but to act as another instrument to control and manipulate the last dying days of these rump organisations.
The Government's vindictiveness and the instrument that they now have for venting that vindictiveness worries us most. I can draw the conclusion only that this will be yet another Government attempt to emasculate even the last fluttering remnants of local democracy that they have done so much to destroy. That is why we shall support the amendments.

Mr. Tony Banks: Perhaps we should be obliged to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) for such a lively speech. I notice that one or two cadavers round the Chamber were not penetrated by his tones. He made a number of good points.
This measure is an example of a Government who are refusing to provide information, but through the Bill require others, under threat of coercion, to provide information. The Government refuse to consult, but try to compel others to consult. They are trying to load all the dice in their favour with this clause.
Although I am happy to support amendment No. 44, frankly it is unnecessary because the GLC already consults widely with regard to its annual budget. Therefore, the procedures set out in clause 9 (2), (3) and (4) are wholly unnecessary, as the consultative document produced for the GLC's budget for 1984–85 will be reproduced for 1985–86. I have spent much time during the past 12 or 14 hours showing the Minister documents and asking him whether he has read them.
Here is the 1984–85 public consultation document on the budget. It was not necessary for the Government to impose on the GLC a duty to consult. The GLC is aware of the need to consult the boroughs, the chambers of commerce, the voluntary organisations and other public bodies and interested individuals in London. In many ways, the requirements that are being imposed on the GLC are unnecessary.
I support amendment No. 44 because I believe that there is no great need for the subsection. But if the Under-Secretary believes — as I assume he does — that consultation on budgets is so important, why does he not extend the provision in the clause into a requirement on the shire districts and the shire counties? Why not allow the same powers to be given to the shire districts? If the hon. Gentleman accepted that, he would show that he has

a genuine concern and love for consultation about budgets. If he refuses to do so, one can only conclude that this is another bit of Government malice—an attempt by the Government to make doubly sure that they will get what they want.
On this occasion, the hon. Gentleman has been pushing at an open door. He may not have known how extensive the GLC's consultations have been, and will be in 1985–86, when an elected GLC will still have been responsible for formulating the budget.

Mr. Tracey: As the clause and the subsection are most important, I wish to put one or two points on record, and, I hope, to strengthen certain parts of the clause.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) presented his arguments plausibly, with all the innocence of a choirboy, but against the impression created by the hon. Gentleman we must set some frightening things said earlier by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). A few of us challenged the hon. Gentleman at the time on the grounds that what he was suggesting was anarchy in the GLC. That is what gives this clause—like one or two previous clauses—its importance.
The clause would enable the Government, the interim council and the borough councils in the GLC and metropolitan county areas to avoid a booby trap. I have talked to various borough council leaders in the GLC area, and there is no doubt that they are afraid of certain things happening and of certain booby traps being set for them. At the moment when the interim council takes over from the GLC, it could find that it is landed with problems which will be very difficult to unscramble.
The Under-Secretary should perhaps tell the Committee today what his views are, and, perhaps, bring forward amendments in another place. Will my hon. Friend consider requiring the GLC and metropolitan counties to consult on section 137 expenditure, which is controversial? A few days ago my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) introduced a ten-minute Bill. She set out clearly the fears of responsible members of borough councils and many ratepayers about how section 137 expenditure is incurred by local authorities, especially the GLC and the metropolitan counties.
I and borough council leaders are also worried about contracts. Contracts for more than £100,000 for things other than the annual provision of supplies and services, and which would create liabilities for the successor authority, should also be examined. It has been suggested that the GLC should have to obtain the Secretary of State's approval for such contracts.
7 am
The transfer of property between authorities and the use of capital receipts for its purchase from London boroughs should also be examined. We have seen some pretty gross examples of that recently. I believe that the GLC purchased property from Lambeth, so putting cash into Lambeth's coffers, with the intention of selling the property back in due course. That is an abuse of the GLC's powers.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tracey: No. I do not wish to delay the Committee.

Mr. Banks: Get it straight then.

Mr. Tracey: Council leaders are also worried about the creation of additional capital or revenue balances and the closure of reserve funds. There are some highly technical areas in which the GLC or metropolitan councils could leave behind some serious problems for their successors. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give fair consideration to the fears of council leaders that I have expressed on their behalf.

Mr. Michie: I have listened to the debate for many hours, and no doubt there are many more hours to go. I should like to confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said about accountability and consultation.
Many of us had misgivings about the local government reorganisation of the early 1970s by which the metropolitan counties were established. I have been a metropolitan county councillor since then and a district councillor, so I have no axe to grind. The metropolitan counties realised that they were distant from the electorate and went out of their way to ensure that there was consultation on budgets, highways, planning, consumer protection and the rest. They have been criticised because they have spent so much time and money on consultation with the electorate.
Whatever the shortcomings of the metropolitan counties might have been, I believe that they have done a magnificent job. The electorate is not very happy about the two-tier system, as it is confusing to some people. But it has still proved to be of benefit when it comes, for example, to transport in south Yorkshire, the environment, and so on. Every budget and policy has been explained to the electorate. What is why such authorities are returned year after year. That is what has upset the Government. Those authorities will continue to be returned, and that is something that the Tories cannot stand.

Mr. Waldegrave: We have had arguments that balance and to some extent contradict each other. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made a vigorous speech in favour of the general principle of consultation. On the left flank, as it were, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that it was all done anyway, and that the powers in the Bill would not make any difference to anything that happened, because there were no teeth to the consultations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) raised very different worries, which I have also heard forcefully expressed by borough leaders who fear that there will be deliberate obstruction by the councils affected by abolition at the ratepayers' expense. Of course, we have been given due warning of that by Opposition Members in the course of great rhetorical flourishes during this interminable debate. So even if my hon. Friend had not made his speech we would have been warned. I say to my hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—I am sure that he is here somewhere—that the questions raised lead me to think that we may be falling between two stools in the way in which we have drafted the matter.

Mr. John Fraser: "Stools" is the right word.

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the hon. Gentleman must be referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), which concentrated a good deal on that sort of thing.
We will reflect further on these issues. It would not be sensible simply to include a provision that had no effect. If we are only duplicating the powerful measures concerning general information requirements in clause 7, there may be no point in proceeding. We undertake to reflect further, although I do not give any commitment to change the Bill.

Mr. Ashdown: We are, of course, happy to hear that the Minister is prepared to think again. However, I must tell the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) that, if that is the deal, what an appalling, paltry, squalid little trinket it is! Labour Members have sold their birthright and their vote for such a paltry little trinket. That will not satisfy the people of south Yorkshire. Yet another lot of letters will flood in to Labour Members, no doubt justifiably complaining that instead of protesting against the Bill they have sold their birthright for a miserable squalid little promise on the part of the Minister to think again.

Mr. Beith: Before my hon. Friend completes his demolition of the Minister on this point, I hope that he will consider what the Minister said—that he would reflect, without any indication of where his reflections would lead or at what point they would be brought to bear. I hope that my hon. Friend is not overlooking the fact that the Government have arranged that there will be no Report stage on the Bill. Therefore, we can only extend pious hopes to another place.

Mr. Ashdown: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. This is a typical example of the old alliance at work in exchanging these little confidences. But enough of that. As the Minister has been unable to give any assurance, and as we shall not have an opportunity to raise matters on Report—it appears that the Government will do anything not to have a further debate on this issue — and since we cannot test the Minister's so-called reconsideration, we have no alternative but to divide the Committee on this group of amendments.

Mr. Corbyn: I support the amendments. It was very sad to hear the Minister's reply. The Government are proposing a most devastating centralisation of power, and all that he can say at the end of nine hours of debate is that he will reflect again. [HON. MEMBERS: "Fourteen hours."] I am sorry; time passes so quickly when one is having fun.
This clause proposes a most disgraceful move. The Government abolish elections and try to abolish our councils, all of which are controlled by the Labour party. They know that they would remain controlled by the Labour party whatever elections might take place. We need no lectures from Liberal Members about the success of local administration in providing the transport that people need and the services that the people of London want. Liberal Members should consider which party is the most popular in London at present.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a clause stand part speech. He must direct his remarks to the amendment.

Mr. Corbyn: I was directing my remarks to the amendment, but I was sidetracked by Liberal Members. Subsection (2) of the clause uses the words,
shall consult such associations of local authorities.
The operative word there is "shall", because the only words that the Government understand are "shall", "must" and "obey". That is the language of oppression and of intimidation. It is the only language that they understand.

Mr. Tony Banks: She who must be obeyed.

Mr. Corbyn: As my hon. Friend says, it is she who must be obeyed.

Mr. Ashdown: While the hon. Gentleman is distributing so much blame to the Liberal party and to the Government, will he also — since he said that he supports the amendment — say a few words in mild criticism of the Labour Front Bench spokesmen, who put down this amendment but did not wish to force it to a vote?

Mr. Corbyn: It would be wrong for me to be diverted down that path. It would be more correct to say that several of us, who have spent many years as local councillors and who have fought for resources and democracy for our areas, are prepared to stay here for as long as it takes to defeat this disgusting legislation.
The amendments are trying to remove the compulsion that the Government are so keen to force down the throats of the people of London and the metropolitan counties, and substitute the sort of co-operation that the GLC and the metropolitan councils have offered to district and borough councils — co-operation in discussion about services. The borough of Islington does not need the Secretary of State to come along and say, "You will be consulted and you will agree." That means a 31·8 per cent, cut in our social services budget, an enormous cut in our housing budget, longer waiting lists, more unemployment, more misery and more poverty. That is what that form of consultation means. What the people of Islington have received from the GLC is support, sympathy and understanding — and, yes, money raised from other London ratepayers, because the GLC recognises the special problems of inner-city boroughs.
All of that will go as a result of this legislation and the kind of consultation that the Government propose. Then-idea of consultation is like a hammer to a nail—straight down and straight in. It is not understanding or sympathy, but destruction. I hope that the amendments will now be carried bright and early in the morning, so that the Secretary of State at least has to come back to Parliament with his proposals.
As it stands, the Bill takes power away from locally elected people and hands it over to the Secretary of State—and we all know what his intentions are with the Bill and his form of consultation.
I am glad to see that Conservative Members are now awake. Good morning, all. I trust that they will recognise the justice of the amendments and carry them.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 21, Noes 173.

Division No. 322]
[7.15 am


AYES


Alton, David
Maxton, John


Ashdown, Paddy
Michie, William


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Barron, Kevin
Nellist, David


Beith, A. J.
Randall, Stuart


Bruce, Malcolm
Sedgemore, Brian


Cohen, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Corbyn, Jeremy
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Freud, Clement



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kirkwood, Archibald
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and


Madden, Max
Mr. John Cartwright.


Marek, Dr John






NOES


Alexander, Richard
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Amess, David
Jessel, Toby


Arnold, Tom
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Batiste, Spencer
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Bellingham, Henry
Key, Robert


Bendall, Vivian
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Best, Keith
Knowles, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Lang, Ian


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Lawler, Geoffrey


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Bottomley, Peter
Lightbown, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Lilley, Peter


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Lord, Michael


Bright, Graham
Lyell, Nicholas


Brinton, Tim
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Brooke, Hon Peter
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Maclean, David John


Bruinvels, Peter
Major, John


Bulmer, Esmond
Malone, Gerald


Butterfill, John
Maples, John


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Marland, Paul


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Mather, Carol


Cash, William
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Chope, Christopher
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Moate, Roger


Coombs, Simon
Moore, John


Cope, John
Moynihan, Hon C.


Couchman, James
Murphy, Christopher


Cranborne, Viscount
Needham, Richard


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Nelson, Anthony


Dorrell, Stephen
Neubert, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Nicholls, Patrick


Dover, Den
Norris, Steven


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Ottaway, Richard


Farr, John
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Favell, Anthony
Parris, Matthew


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Pawsey, James


Fookes, Miss Janet
Porter, Barry


Franks, Cecil
Powell, William (Corby)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Powley, John


Freeman, Roger
Raffan, Keith


Gale, Roger
Renton, Tim


Galley, Roy
Roe, Mrs Marion


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Rowe, Andrew


Goodlad, Alastair
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Gorst, John
Ryder, Richard


Gow, Ian
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Greenway, Harry
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gregory, Conal
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Grist, Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Speller, Tony


Hanley, Jeremy
Spencer, Derek


Haselhurst, Alan
Squire, Robin


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Stern, Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Hayes, J.
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Hayhoe, Barney
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Heddle, John
Sumberg, David


Henderson, Barry
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Hickmet, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hind, Kenneth
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hirst, Michael
Terlezki, Stefan


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Holt, Richard
Thornton, Malcolm


Hooson, Tom
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Howard, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Trippier, David


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Viggers, Peter


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John






Waldegrave, Hon William
Whitfield, John


Walden, George
Wiggin, Jerry


Wall, Sir Patrick
Wood, Timothy


Waller, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Ward, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)



Warren, Kenneth
Tellers for the Noes:


Watts, John
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Wheeler, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Beith: I beg to move, That the Chairman do leave the Chair. This motion is in no sense a reflection on your excellent conduct of our proceedings, Mr. Armstrong, over the past many hours. I pay tribute to the care and patience that you have shown. I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to adjourn the proceedings by means of that motion at this stage to enable some of the reflection to which Ministers have referred to take place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has said several times that he intends to reflect. We are anxious to provide him with the opportunity to do that, and hope that there will be an useful outcome from that process. I am not sure that Ministers want the outcome to be all that specific. Such a break would be for the assistance of hon. Members, although my hon. Friends are happy and indeed anxious to debate a number of other features of the Bill.
I detect from Conservative Members the sense that they have been kept here for a long time discussing a Bill to which they are not enthusiastically committed, to put it mildly. [Interruption.] Perhaps I am wrong and they are anxious to get ahead.
In a Bill as important as this, whose provisions are as complicated as these, it would be immensely to the Committee's advantage to stand over the proceedings now and return to the matter on Thursday, when time has been set aside for the remaining stages.
I know that the Government intend that there will be no Report stage. It seems that they may succeed in that, because although their numbers are dwindling they still have a comfortable majority. However, if the Labour party brought its members into the Lobby now we could beat the Government's majority.
I believe that it is a reasonable prediction that there will be no Report stage and that therefore the time available to us on Thursday could easily be divided between the remaining amendments and new clauses. A debate on clause stand part remains before we reach the other matters. There is still enough time for us to tackle those things and the Third Reading.
Many hon. Members want to take part in those debates, and rather than rush them through this morning, when there are Committees, that would be a reasonable way to pursue the matter. I hope that Ministers will give us their view of how they see matters proceeding.
I assure Ministers that we are willing to continue and if they would prefer to continue in that way we shall do so. I am giving them that opportunity and you, Mr. Armstrong, the opportunity for a well-deserved break from the duties that you have carried out so well.

The First Deputy Chairman: The Question is, That the Committee do report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Waldegrave: Mr. Armstrong, there was a moment a few hours ago when I thought for a time—

Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. I did move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair, not the motion that you put.

The First Deputy Chairman: That is an antiquated form. We must formalise the matter, and the Question I put is the Question before the Committee.

Mr. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Armstrong. I was most anxious to ensure that the Leader of the House did not have denied to him the opportunity at a later stage to move the motion, That the Committee do report progress and ask leave to sit again. I am always anxious to assist the Leader of the House. It is for that reason that I avoided the moving of a motion that might be duplicated. Therefore, I moved, that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.

The First Deputy Chairman: In no way is the Leader of the House being denied the opportunity that the hon. Gentleman wants to give him.

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that an antiquated form is indeed what the Liberal party is interested in. There was a time, a couple of hours ago, when I thought just for a moment that the Liberal party was trying to run a filibuster. It did not last long. Having run out of things to say on the Bill, Liberal Members are using antiquated forms to see if they can waste time on this sort of thing. Let us get on with it.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. The Leader of the House might wish to reflect on whether or not the Committee should proceed because during the last Division there was only one Clerk allocated to the Aye Lobby. I am sure you can imagine, Mr. Armstrong, the great difficulty he experienced moving from one desk to the other to take the names. I appreciate that the Government are in considerable difficulty in securing the legislation. We also appreciate that cuts are biting very deep into all corners of the Committee, but I ask you, Mr. Armstrong, to ask the Leader of the House to ensure that if the Committee continues, adequate arrangements are made for Clerks to attend in the Aye Lobby to ensure that the difficulties experienced in the last Division are overcome.

The First Deputy Chairman: I understand that there was unavoidable delay but that it was quickly overcome. I understand that the voting was properly recorded.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of Order, Mr. Armstrong.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: You scruffy little man.

Mr. Hughes: Had hon. Members who are complaining about some apparel in the Committee been here all night they, too, might feel the need to take off their jackets. Further to the point of order raised a moment ago—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. This is a debatable motion, but is the hon. Gentleman raising a point of order?

Mr. Hughes: This is a point of order. Further to the point of order raised a moment ago, it would help the


Committee to expediate the business, because of the shortage of Clerks, if the official Opposition were to indicate that they will not have their numbers here. In that case we might be able to survive with one Clerk telling in the Lobby. If considerable numbers of the official Opposition are expected in the foreseeable future the Committee would need to know.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.

Question put, That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 21, Noes 165.

Division No. 323]
[7.33 am


AYES


Alton, David
Maxton, John


Ashdown, Paddy
Meadowcroft, Michael


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Michie, William


Barron, Kevin
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Beith, A. J.
Nellist, David


Bruce, Malcolm
Sedgemore, Brian


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Skinner, Dennis


Cohen, Harry
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Corbyn, Jeremy



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Kirkwood, Archibald
Tellers for the Ayes:


Madden, Max
Mr. John Cartwright and


Marek, Dr John
Mr. Clement Freud.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Gorst, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Greenway, Harry


Amess, David
Gregory, Conal


Arnold, Tom
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Batiste, Spencer
Grist, Ian


Bellingham, Henry
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bendall, Vivian
Hanley, Jeremy


Berry, Sir Anthony
Haselhurst, Alan


Best, Keith
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hawksley, Warren


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hayes, J.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayhoe, Barney


Bottomley, Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Heddle, John


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Henderson, Barry


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hickmet, Richard


Bright, Graham
Hind, Kenneth


Brinton, Tim
Hirst, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Holt, Richard


Bruinvels, Peter
Hooson, Tom


Bulmer, Esmond
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Butterfill, John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cash, William
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Chope, Christopher
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jessel, Toby


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Simon
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Cope, John
Key, Robert


Couchman, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knowles, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lang, Ian


Dover, Den
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawrence, Ivan


Favell, Anthony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lightbown, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Peter


Franks, Cecil
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Freeman, Roger
Lord, Michael


Gale, Roger
Lyell, Nicholas


Galley, Roy
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Goodhart, Sir Philip
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Goodlad, Alastair
Maclean, David John





Major, John
Speller, Tony


Malone, Gerald
Spencer, Derek


Maples, John
Squire, Robin


Mather, Carol
Stern, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Moate, Roger
Sumberg, David


Moore, John
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Murphy, Christopher
Temple-Morris, Peter


Needham, Richard
Terlezki, Stefan


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Neubert, Michael
Thornton, Malcolm


Nicholls, Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Norris, Steven
Tracey, Richard


Osborn, Sir John
Trippier, David


Ottaway, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Viggers, Peter


Parris, Matthew
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Pawsey, James
Waldegrave, Hon William


Porter, Barry
Waller, Gary


Powell, William (Corby)
Ward, John


Powley, John
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Warren, Kenneth


Raffan, Keith
Watts, John


Renton, Tim
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wheeler, John


Rowe, Andrew
Whitfield, John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wiggin, Jerry


Ryder, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Yeo, Tim


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sayeed, Jonathan



Shelton, William (Streatham)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. Archie Hamilton.


Soames, Hon Nicholas

Question accordingly negatived.

The First Deputy Chairman: The Question is, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
In accordance with the power conferred upon me by Standing Order No. 50, I think that the principle of the clause has been well discussed.

Mr. Freud: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. No point of order arises on this matter.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 162, Noes 24.

Division No. 324]
[7.43 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Bulmer, Esmond


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Arnold, Tom
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Batiste, Spencer
Cash, William


Bellingham, Henry
Chope, Christopher


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Best, Keith
Coombs, Simon


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cope, John


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Couchman, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bottomley, Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Dover, Den


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bright, Graham
Favell, Anthony


Brinton, Tim
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brooke, Hon Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Franks, Cecil


Bruinvels, Peter
Freeman, Roger






Gale, Roger
Needham, Richard


Galley, Roy
Nelson, Anthony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Neubert, Michael


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Nicholls, Patrick


Goodlad, Alastair
Norris, Steven


Gorst, John
Ottaway, Richard


Greenway, Harry
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Gregory, Conal
Parris, Matthew


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Pawsey, James


Grist, Ian
Porter, Barry


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Powley, John


Hanley, Jeremy
Proctor, K. Harvey


Haselhurst, Alan
Raffan, Keith


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Renton, Tim


Hawksley, Warren
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hayes, J.
Rowe, Andrew


Hayhoe, Barney
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ryder, Richard


Henderson, Barry
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hickmet, Richard
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hind, Kenneth
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hirst, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Holt, Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hooson, Tom
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Speller, Tony


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Spencer, Derek


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Squire, Robin


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Stern, Michael


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Hunter, Andrew
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Jessel, Toby
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Sumberg, David


Key, Robert
Taylor, John (Solihull)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Temple-Morris, Peter


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Terlezki, Stefan


Knowles, Michael
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Thornton, Malcolm


Lawrence, Ivan
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Tracey, Richard


Lightbown, David
Trippier, David


Lilley, Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Viggers, Peter


Lord, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Lyell, Nicholas
Waldegrave, Hon William


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Waller, Gary


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Ward, John


Maclean, David John
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Major, John
Watts, John


Malone, Gerald
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Maples, John
Wheeler, John


Mather, Carol
Whitfield, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wiggin, Jerry


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wood, Timothy


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Yeo, Tim


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Moate, Roger



Moore, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Moynihan, Hon C.
Mr. Ian Lang and


Murphy, Christopher
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.




NOES


Alton, David
Marek, Dr John


Ashton, Joe
Maxton, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Barron, Kevin
Michie, William


Beith, A. J.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Bruce, Malcolm
Nellist, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cartwright, John
Randall, Stuart


Cohen, Harry
Sedgemore, Brian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Skinner, Dennis


Ewing, Harry



Freud, Clement
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth and


Madden, Max
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 9 orderd to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

EXPENSES

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 164, Noes 23.

Division No. 325]
[7.55 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Holt, Richard


Amess, David
Hooson, Tom


Batiste, Spencer
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Bellingham, Henry
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bendall, Vivian
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Berry, Sir Anthony
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Best, Keith
Hunter, Andrew


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Jessel, Toby


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Key, Robert


Bottomley, Peter
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
King, Rt Hon Tom


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Knowles, Michael


Bright, Graham
Lang, Ian


Brinton, Tim
Lawler, Geoffrey


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Bruinvels, Peter
Lightbown, David


Bulmer, Esmond
Lilley, Peter


Butterfill, John
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Lord, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lyell, Nicholas


Cash, William
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Chope, Christopher
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Maclean, David John


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Major, John


Coombs, Simon
Malone, Gerald


Cope, John
Maples, John


Couchman, James
Mather, Carol


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Dorrell, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Dover, Den
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Moate, Roger


Farr, John
Moore, John


Favell, Anthony
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Moynihan, Hon C.


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Murphy, Christopher


Franks, Cecil
Needham, Richard


Freeman, Roger
Nelson, Anthony


Gale, Roger
Nicholls, Patrick


Galley, Roy
Norris, Steven


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Ottaway, Richard


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Goodlad, Alastair
Parris, Matthew


Gorst, John
Pawsey, James


Greenway, Harry
Porter, Barry


Gregory, Conal
Powell, William (Corby)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Powley, John


Grist, Ian
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Raffan, Keith


Hanley, Jeremy
Renton, Tim


Haselhurst, Alan
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Rowe, Andrew


Hawksley, Warren
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hayes, J.
Ryder, Richard


Hayhoe, Barney
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Henderson, Barry
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hickmet, Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hind, Kenneth
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hirst, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)






Soames, Hon Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian


Speller, Tony
Viggers, Peter


Spencer, Derek
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Squire, Robin
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stern, Michael
Waller, Gary


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Ward, John


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Watts, John


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Sumberg, David
Wheeler, John


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Whitfield, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wiggin, Jerry


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Terlezki, Stefan
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thornton, Malcolm



Townend, John (Bridlington)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Trippier, David
Mr. Michael Neubert.




NOES


Alton, David
Maxton, John


Ashdown, Paddy
Meadowcroft, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Michie, William


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Nellist, David


Barron, Kevin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Beith, A. J.
Randall, Stuart


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Sedgemore, Brian


Cartwright, John
Skinner, Dennis


Cohen, Harry
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Corbyn, Jeremy



Foulkes, George
Tellers for the Noes:


Freud, Clement
Mr. Simon Hughes and


Kirkwood, Archibald
Mr. Malcolm Bruce.


Marek, Dr John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

SHORT TITLE AND INTERPRETATION

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Beith: It is a pleasure to have you taking over our proceedings at this hour, Mr. Hunt, giving a well-earned rest to the First Deputy Chairman.
The clause will give a title to the Bill that we maintain is wholly inappropriate. It may be the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, but there are many other titles one could give it. Its provisions are far from interim, so to call it an interim provisions Bill is wholly misleading. The title does not reflect the content of the Bill.
The Bill could better be described as the "Local Government Provisions That Will Become Permanent Bill" — not to mention the "Local Government (Dangerous Precedents) Bill". The provisions could become permanent because many of the major features of the Bill come into force immediately. Part II does not come into force until an order is made by the Secretary of State, but other parts come into effect without delay. For them to be interim, they must be repealed by the Secretary of State bringing forward an order. The procedure necessary to make the provisions interim involves processes at least comparable with the processes we are going through now.
The provisions do not lapse at a certain time. They would be genuinely interim provisions only if somewhere in the Bill there was a provision ensuring that certain parts expired by a given date—or that the provisions should have effect once certain steps had been carried out.
The Bill is described in a seriously misleading way. It is designed to confuse the innocent reader who might stray into Her Majesty's Stationery Office and purchase a copy of the Bill, at £2·70—no doubt it will be more when it becomes an Act because the rate of inflation is so alarming.
It would be possible to consider a great variety of amendments. Some hon. Members, who have been conspicuous by their absence in the night hours, made suggestions on the Order Paper about the clause. No doubt there are good reasons why they should not be pursued in debate. It is simpler and more straightforward to concentrate our attack on the plain contention that the clause should not be approved—not only because it is part of an obnoxious Bill, but because it seeks to suggest that the provisions of the Bill are interim by character. They are not, and complicated procedures are required to make them interim.
The title as framed denies the fundamental problem which the Bill creates, which is that it sets out interim provisions based on legislation not yet brought before the House. I am sorry to reiterate this point, but if any Government Members live to see any extremist Government of the Right or the Left in this country, they will discover that the provisions and implications of the Bill were far from interim and that their effect passed into the constitutional fabric of our nation in a most harmful way. I wish that Government Members would sometimes reflect on the precedent that they have created and the possibilities that they have opened up for extremist Governments by pretending that one can describe a measure as "Interim Provisions", slip it through the House of Commons in three days, con the Labour party into muting its opposition to a derisory level, and not, in doing so, damage the constitutional fabric of the nation. Calling the Bill the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill is a cover-up job on a Bill that takes away basic constitutional rights and permanently damages the traditional and hither to unwritten safeguards of our construction.

Mr. Simon Hughes: During the Second Reading debate the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said that, were his party in opposition, it would have opposed the Bill far more solidly and forcefully than Her Majesty's Opposition have done. There were two reasons why the right hon. Gentleman, and some of his right hon. and hon. Friends, made that point. They related it to the description of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is correct in saying that it is totally inaccurate to describe the Bill as interim when what it provides for is conditionally, if not completely, permanent. However, the title also totally misleads the country and may well have totally misled the electorate as well as many Government Back Benchers, because the Bill does much more than provide interim provisions for local government.
First—and the Secretary of State has been unable to suggest any precedent — it abolishes ordained and established elections. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup made the point that it does so by political sleight of hand, and that in London one political authority — at present the Labour party — is to be replaced by the Government's own political party. London is to be run by the Government's place people.
The abolition of elections is not an interim provision. It is a fundamental constitutional reform affecting local and central Government. I am not aware of any recent examples in any other country of the abolition of elections being accompanied by a proposal to change the political party running a country or area, but if that were to happen there is no question but that our Government would say, "They are not a democratic country like the United Kingdom." But, without constitutional or practical precedent, that is what the Government propose to do.
I have not been a Member of this House for long enough to know whether it is possible for the title of a Bill to omit to mention the most important aspect of that Bill. I do not know whether that is a normal and regular procedure. But there is nothing interim about the abolition of elections next year or the replacement of a Labour-controlled council for London by a Conservative-controlled one by means of this provision.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: Where did the Liberal party stand when the Labour Government delayed the borough elections in 1967–68?

Mr. Beith: I was not a Member of the House at the time, but I understand that when the Conservative party and when the Labour party were in charge of local government reform the same authority continued in office until such time as the House decided what should replace it. On both occasions a new authority was created to take on the responsibilities and there was an overlap of one year during which the existing authorities continued in office and the new ones prepared for government. That is not proposed here. We have interim provisions to allow authorities to take over functions for which they were not elected and finally they will just disappear.
8.15 am
There is nothing interim about the abolition of elections and nothing that describes the contents of the Bill. If, within a mile of here, we purchased literature described as a children's newspaper but which was concerned with indecent exposure, it could be subject to prosecution under several laws and would have misled the purchaser. In this context, the purchasers are perhaps 18 million electors. The Government misled the country in their manifesto by not mentioning the abolition of elections. That will be broadcast ad nauseum.

Mr. Bendall: The hon. Gentleman referrred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) who tried to ensure the GLC's continuation for an extra year. I find that extraordinary because when the Labour Government put elections back for one year in 1967–68 he thought the action undemocratic.

Mr. Hughes: I cannot answer on behalf of a former Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman's point has nothing to do with the title of the Bill.

Mr. Bendall: The hon. Gentleman raised the point.

Mr. Hughes: Indeed, because the criticism of a former Prime Minister has some weight outside the House. He said that this is a constitutional enormity that the public should oppose.
We can oppose the Bill best by describing what it does accurately, so that the irregular attenders of another place on whom the Government may rely know what they are

supporting. The Bill is not what we understand a Bill to be because its substantive part will not be implemented. It will have to wait in limbo for us to make the substantive decision. We must first consider a Bill that we have not yet seen and which the Government may not yet have planned properly.
Therefore, the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill describes something that is only a paving Bill. It will come into force with its draconian powers only when we see the colour of the Government's money on their substantive proposals. We have a right to insist that the Government go away and redraw the title so that it makes that clear. When we have an accurate title that describes the content of the Bill—a principle that the Government are normally very concerned about—we may consider supporting that description.

Mr. Corbyn: I know that it is unusual to hold a debate on the title, but this Bill is so obnoxious, nasty and devious that it must be opposed in every way possible. To call it the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill gives it a nice ring of bureaucratic certainty that it will all be OK, and that it is done in the best interests of everyone. However, as we well know, the Bill makes a major constitutional change. It represents the destruction of democracy for nearly 14 million people, and it is a disgrace that it should have this title.
An enormous campaign has been waged against the Bill, which has aroused people's passions. When people are told exactly what the Bill means, they say, "But it says that it is the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill." My answer to that is that it needs a new title. I would call it the "Local Government (Destruction of Democracy) Bill". That is exactly what it is. That is its purpose, and no more.
During the campaign against the Bill there has been tremendous enthusiasm for something that people have come to regard as part of life. People are used to going to their local authority, which either will, or will not do something for them. They can get rid of the council after four years if they do not like it. In London, the GLC has actually been trying to provide something for them. The Bill is an act of political spite. The trade unions, the local Labour parties and the community organisations have taken the lead in the campaign against the Bill. Together they have realised—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Hunt): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the clause is very narrow and deals only with the title. His speech is going rather wide of that.

Mr. Corbyn: Thank you, Mr. Hunt, for that advice. I have no wish to stray from the subject under debate. However, I am sure that you understand that the title of a Bill means quite a lot. If succeeding generations look through their history books they will ask what all the fuss was about, saying that the Bill was only called the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill. But there is an awful lot in a title. I hope that the House will recognise that this is a bad Bill of evil intent, which is very dangerous for democracy. Such a Bill deserves a more appropriate title.

Mr. Freud: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that "provisions" is a misnomer, in that that word appears to mean that something is provided whereas in this Bill something is quite patently taken away?

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman has more experience of short speeches than me. Fifty-eight seconds seems to be his normal length, although I enjoy listening to him. Of course, the Bill does provide for something—it provides for the centralisation of power around one person. That is all. It takes everything away from the rest of us. It is wrongly titled in that it suggests that it includes a general provision that is of value to anyone. The Bill is bad and is mistitiled, and I look forward to the Mininster admitting that the Government got it wrong, and that the real title should be the "Local Government (Destruction of Democracy) Bill", because that is what it is.

Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said that there had been an outpouring of enthusiasm in the campaign against the Bill. As I look at the Opposition Benches, I see no evidence of such an outpouring.
This is a wholly innocuous clause which simply states:
This Act may be cited as the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984.
The long title states that it is
A Bill to make provision for the composition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils pending a decision by Parliament on their continued existence.
The explanatory and financial memorandum states that
The Bill makes interim arrangements for the Greater London Council … and the metropolitan county councils.
Against that background, and the debates on the Bill, the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill is a perfectly fair description of what we have been debating for some time.
The short title accurately and concisely reflects the purpose of the Bill, although, as has been said, it is now called the paving Bill. I ask the Committee to agree that the clause, which is wholly inoffensive and innocuous, should stand part of the Bill.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 165, Noes 23.

Division No. 326]
[8.25 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Couchman, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Amess, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bellingham, Henry
Dover, Den


Bendall, Vivian
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Berry, Sir Anthony
Farr, John


Best, Keith
Favell, Anthony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Forman, Nigel


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Peter
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Galley, Roy


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bright, Graham
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brinton, Tim
Goodlad, Alastair


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gorst, John


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Greenway, Harry


Bruinvels, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bulmer, Esmond
Grist, Ian


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hanley, Jeremy


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Chope, Christopher
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayes, J.


Cockeram, Eric
Hayhoe, Barney


Coombs, Simon
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cope, John
Henderson, Barry





Hickmet, Richard
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hind, Kenneth
Raffan, Keith


Hirst, Michael
Renton, Tim


Holt, Richard
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hooson, Tom
Rowe, Andrew


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Ryder, Richard


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hunter, Andrew
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Jessel, Toby
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Key, Robert
Speller, Tony


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Spencer, Derek


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Squire, Robin


Knowles, Michael
Stern, Michael


Lang, Ian
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Lawrence, Ivan
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sumberg, David


Lightbown, David
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Lilley, Peter
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lord, Michael
Terlezki, Stefan


Lyell, Nicholas
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Maclean, David John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Malone, Gerald
Tracey, Richard


Maples, John
Trippier, David


Marland, Paul
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Viggers, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Waller, Gary


Moate, Roger
Ward, John


Moore, John
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Watson, John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Watts, John


Murphy, Christopher
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Nelson, Anthony
Wheeler, John


Neubert, Michael
Whitfield, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wiggin, Jerry


Norris, Steven
Wood, Timothy


Ottaway, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Parris, Matthew



Pawsey, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Porter, Barry
Mr. Douglas Hogg and


Powell, William (Corby)
Mr. John Major.


Powley, John





NOES


Alton, David
Maxton, John


Ashdown, Paddy
Michie, William


Ashton, Joe
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Barron, Kevin
Nellist, David


Bruce, Malcolm
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Sedgemore, Brian


Cartwright, John
Skinner, Dennis


Cohen, Harry
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Craigen, J. M.



Freud, Clement
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Kirkwood, Archibald
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft.


Marek, Dr John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 4

REPORT ON PUBLIC EXPENDITURE

'Within three months of the date on which Part I of this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report on the financial consequences of abolishing the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils and transferring functions from those councils to any other body or bodies, specifying in particular what difference, if any, is likely to occur in public expenditure.'.—[Mr. Nellist.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Dave Nellist: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is the most important of all new clauses. Since the introduction of the Bill to abolish the Greater London council, the metropolitan county council and next year's elections to those bodies, the Government have told us many stories about how much the measure will save. Last summer the Secretary of State said that it would save £120 million. Since then he has refused on many occasions to quantify the anticipated savings and to say which services would be cut to make them.
There is a distinct parallel between the Secretary of State's refusal to provide any factual information about the cuts—he would say savings—and the Secretary of State for Energy who has been unable to provide facts and figures about coal stocks and the ability of power stations to withstand the miners' strike. Trying to get a statement from the Secretary of State about how much the Bill will cost — or in his language, save — is like boxing a marshmallow.
I shall quote some of the Secretary of State's remarks to show why the clause must be inserted. At the Conservative party conference in October 1983, he said:
I am a Tory, and I have been brought up as a Tory, and I believe that the burden of proof is upon the man who advocates change, and if he does not satisfy that burden of proof then change should not be made.
The Government have not even attempted to prove the case for dismantling the GLC and MCCs. They have neither produced a shred of evidence nor a single fact to support the Secretary of State's proposals. His original claim was that the county councils were a wasteful, unnecessary tier of government, which should be abolished as quickly as possible. He claimed that abolition was the most carefully thought-out part of the Government's manifesto, and was sufficiently confident to predict annual savings of £120 million.
The Secretary of State's subsequent statements show that the Government's thinking on abolition has been grossly inadequate. In October 1983 he said:
If we don't achieve substantial savings when this exercise is completed, I shall have failed.
In November of the same year he claimed:
I do consider that savings of upward of £100 million"—
we are down to £100 million now—
annually could be made, but that is no more than a broad estimate.
Five days later he announced:
I am beginning to recognise my wisdom in not plucking figures out of the air, because had I done so I might have underestimated the savings that could be achieved.
He also said in November:
Savings will depend entirely on final, detailed decisions
of the successor authorities. One may wonder how the Secretary of State can reach that conclusion when I thought that the Bill's main purpose was the appointment of joint boards by the Secretary of State and his decision on the budgets under which they would operate.
With a complete shift of ground the Secretary of State declared in December 1983 that
expenditure issues are not central to the case for abolition.
That is a complete somersault or U-turn — hon. Members can pick the analogy that they want to use—and change of argument over two or three months. Abolition would cost more and would not save ratepayers money. It has been estimated that ratepayers would have to find up to £61 million more every year to pay for the same services.
It is necessary to insert into the Bill a mandatory requirement on the Government to prove the facts and figures of their case within three months of part I coming into force. During the past five months many hon. Members have tried through oral and written parliamentary questions to get the Government to explain the position. They have consistently refused to give that information. Some of the questions have been quoted today. I have attempted to challenge the Secretary of State about some management studies which purport to show what the savings would be were the metropolitan county councils be abolished. The most recent study was conducted by Price Waterhouse. It covered the metropolitan district councils of Birmingham, Dudley, Solihull, Trafford, Sefton and the Wirral. The first two of those seven local authorities have withdrawn from the study.
The Minister said that there had been an authoritative study of how much could be saved by the abolition of the councils. That study was based on five out of the 36 metropolitan district councils within the areas of only three of the six metropolitan county councils that will be affected.
What is more important, that supposedly authoritative document, which the House was supposed to believe proved the necessity of abolition to save money, was completed in four working days of collecting information. It was supposed to be a worthy in-depth study. It took only three weeks over Easter and it was produced two days before the May elections. That did not do the Secretary of State's party or its results in the west midlands elections much good. What savings does the Secretary of State believe that the Bill will achieve? We shall still need, fire, police, highway, transport and other services.
The west midlands has not had the attention that it deserves in this debate, and I shall therefore give an example of its consumer services. The west midlands is recognised as having the largest county council consumer services department. It is impossible to break up that department and show a saving to the west midlands' ratepayers while maintaining the service in the areas to which it is devolved.
It has been estimated by the chairman of the west midlands consumer services committee, through his officers, that it would cost an extra 15 per cent. on the annual £2·6 million bill to run the service if it were to be split up and returned to the district councils. It is an extremely important service that protects, for example—this should not belittle the quality of the service—toys, to ensure that kids are not hurt by the import, shoddy manufacture, or sale of toys in the west midlands. If that service were reduced youngsters might be maimed or injured. It should be maintained at its present level. Specialised people are needed to follow cases through. It is the same with other services in my county. They cannot be provided without extra cost. Without the provisions of


the new clause it would be impossible for working people to get the facts and figures from the Government to prove their case.
8.45 am
Another local example is property. In the west midlands the county council owns property such as police houses and council buildings. I have been on the legal and property administration committee of the council for a few months. Although it is more than 10 years since the reorganisation of local government it is only in the last 12 months that we have got round to deciding who owns which bit of property and who should settle the different bills. In the last reorganisation the metropolitan district councils were still in existence; the officers still worked there and they were able to pass on the necessary information to the new officers in the county councils.
The opposite will happen when councils are abolished. The officials with experience will be dispersed to different jobs in other parts of the country. It will be much harder to sort out the transfer of property when councils are abolished. The provisions of the new clause would enable people to find out the cost involved in the transfer of property.
The Minister may be aware of the problems of staffing levels in county councils. Because of the uncertainty about job security which has been engendered by the attacks on Labour county councils, officers, including some senior officers, have taken alternative posts. Therefore, there are vacancies in the west midlands and other metropolitan county councils. If and when the break-up takes place, there will not be continuity of experience. If the Government force through the Bill, there will be gaps in the transfer of responsibility. Costs will escalate because of the inability to have continuity of service.
None of these points has been answered by the Government. They have not justified their reasons for pushing the Bill through. They cannot, because it is a political attack. It has nothing to do with money. It is an attack on Labour county councils which are carrying out policies supported by working people for the provision of cheap bus services, for example. It is not an attempt to save money for the ratepayers.
By cutting local authority grants the Government have actually forced up the rates and then have tried to lay the blame on the Labour councils. It is necessary to introduce the new clause to make mandatory the provision of a report three months after the enactment of the substantive Bill to disclose the cover-up and con that the Government are trying to carry through.
In regard to councils in west Yorkshire the transition from metropolitan county councils to district councils willmean that the provision of services will cost an extra £8 million. It is estimated that £2 million extra will be needed by district councils for incinerators to provide their own waste disposal facilities and another £2 million extra to sort out the incompatibility of the district councils' computer programming. It is estimated that severance pay to staff will cost between £12 million ad £22 million.
Travel disturbance arrangements and payments to offset extra travel that is undertaken by staff who have been dispersed following the break-up of a county council, which has taken place in Yorkshire, is estimated to cost another £5 million.
There is a lengthy list of extra costs and efforts have to be made at a regional level to meet them. We cannot get

Ministers or the Secretary of State to come clean and admit what they think the savings will amount to. If the transitional costs in west Yorkshire are typical of those throughout the rest of the metropolitan counties, there will be a bill for an additional sum of between £110 million and £165 million instead of savings. In addition, there will be a new annual bill of £45 million. These figures do not include the extra bill that the GLC will produce because they apply only to the metropolitan county councils. I have already mentioned the extra cost of consumer services in the part of the west midlands that I represent. Emergency planning and civil defence are council functions and they include the need to plan for civil emergencies.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend's remarks about civil defence planning rather worry me. Does his county council have any idea what action may be taken over civil defence planning once the elections have been abolished?

Mr. Nellist: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that he has asked a relevant question. 1 do not believe that there is any such thing as civil defence against a nuclear war.

Mr. Corbyn: I am glad to hear it.

The Temporary Chairman: That issue is completely irrelevant to the new clause.

Mr. Nellist: I shall continue with the question of emergency planning, which is relevant. It is a service which is provided by 16 employees of the county council. According to statements made by the Secretary of State on one of the many occasions when he tried to con us in the west midlands, one or two district council chiefs and executives, prior to the May elections, had produced figures that showed £7 million or £8 million could be saved in the west midlands. The document from which he quoted stated that the emergency planning functions could be carried out on a district council basis by only eight to 10 individuals. I do not think that serious civil emergencies such as railway accidents, or gas explosions can be properly planned by halving the emergency work force.

Mr. Roger King: How can a train crash be planned?

Mr. Nellist: It is obvious that the hours of debate are telling on the hearing to some hon. Members, Mr. Hunt. I was talking about emergency planning in the event of train crashes. Train crashes are not planned, by defnition. They are accidents and they have to be planned for so that we might deal with the consequences.
Computer systems will be of interest in the west midlands. The West Midlands county council has a system that operates on a county basis. If the Bill were to be enacted and there were to be district divisions, the compatability of computer systems from district to district would place an additional burden on rent and ratepayers. Planning and land reclamation cannot be effectively carried out on a small scale, because it is by definition a regional responsibility. If there is any question of devolving those responsibilities back to the district councils, an additional area of cost will be involved.
I have tried to illustrate that attempts are being made by councillors and officers in the West Midlands county council, which are reflected by other councils throughout the country, to estimate the effect of the abolition of the councils and the cancellation of elections. Extra costs would be incurred by district councils. Despite repeated


requests that have been made to the Secretary of State and his Ministers and notwithstanding the vague and unsubstantiated references to savings of £120 million, which were made initially a year ago and repeated at the Tory party conference in October, Ministers have not been prepared to spell out to working people what will be the net financial effects of the Bill's enactment. Therefore, it is essential that the new clause be inserted in the Bill so that, should the Bill be enacted, there will be a responsibility on the Government to provide the relevant facts and figures. Is it to be £120 million savings or £165 million extra costs? If up to 9,000 people are to be sacked on reorganisation, as has been mentioned by several Ministers, has account been taken of the £60 million-odd that will be paid out in dole, supplementary benefit, loss of tax and loss of national insurance?
If the Tory party and Ministers intend to take us down the road of confrontation with directly elected Labour authorities, and to force through the Bill, do Ministers not have the guts to come to the Dispatch Box and spell out facts and figures so that working people can judge whether it will cost them money or save them money? I believe that it will cost a great deal more money, and that may be the reason why the Secretary of State and his Ministers refuse to answer these questions.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am glad to have the opportunity to support an important clause. As the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) said, there seem to be some differences of opinion among experts inside and outside Government circles about the Bill's likely financial implications. The Government must be prepared to spell them out in some detail. If there will be a saving, as the Government argue, without spelling out how that will be achieved and what the cost will be, the taxpayer must have some indication of the likely benefit in terms of a tax cut, or those who are in favour of spending money in a different way should offer a reasonable case for the more effective deployment of the resources that are saved as against the way in which they are currently being expended. The clause is particularly important. I hope that the Government will recognise that the Bill cannot be agreed to on the basis of a general idea that it will save money, without setting out in specific detail the areas in which likely savings are to be made.
It is fairly easy to recognise that that has implications throughout the United Kingdom. It is not simply a matter for the relevant authorities. I and my colleagues greatly regret that the Government maintain that we should be treated as one centralised unitary state, with Whitehall and the Treasury ultimately controlling everything, whether local authority or Government expenditure.
It is intriguing, when comparing local authority expenditure with Government expenditure, to observe that the Government imply that the abolition of the local authorities will by definition save money, even though many of the functions may be transferred partly to Government administration when the Government's record of controlling expenditure is far worse than that of most local authorities. The vast majority of taxpayers will not be inspired with a great deal of confidence to know that the Government will be in control of expenditure, because, so far, in spite of their five years in office, the Government

have not yet succeeded in taking firm control of expenditure, and the local authorities have performed considerably better than the Government.
The analysis of the various functions carried out by these bodies and the transfer to other authorities leaves many unanswered questions on how the services will be taken up and how those involved in providing the services will be taken up. If, after the abolition of the local authorities, a great many people are made redundant, that will have a direct financial cost to the Government and the Treasury. We are entitled to know what the likely cost will be. The authorities inheriting responsibility for what is currently carried out by the GLC and by the metropolitan councils will inevitably have to incur costs and to take on additional staff. The Government have given no clear indication of what this will be or whether the economies of scale achieved by the creation of the metropolitan councils and the GLC will be lost when the operations are transferred downwards.
A Conservative Government originally introduced the metropolitan counties and the GLC. I recall, although I was not then in this House, that the Prime Minister of the day, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), argued that it would increase the efficiency of local government and save money. The net effect of setting up these authorities was a great increase in local government bureaucracy and cost. But the Government cannot simply say that because they cost money to set up, we should abolish them and thereby save money.
9 am
The Government are introducing the Bill because they have been unable to take democratic control of the authorities which the Conservatives themsleves created, and for that reason they have decided to abolish them. The Bill and its financial implications have caused widespread anxiety to all local authorities, for when the Government see authorities slipping out of their control, they seek legislation to abolish them so that they can take control centrally.
In my area, the Grampian regional council — the Scottish equivalent of a county council; not a metropolitan council but more a shire county council — is Conservative controlled. When the Tories lose control of that council, as they will in the next round of elections, the Secretary of State for Scotland, following the pattern of the Government, may seek to take action to abolish that local authority, as the Government do not like to see authorities thriving under the control of parties other than their own. The voters in my area would, therefore, like to know the financial implications of such an abolition and how the Government would set about working out the savings or costs that would result from it.
A range of figures has been quoted covering a band in excess of £300 million either way — a £150 million saving and an extra cost of £160 million—which, as the Government are quick to remind us on other occasions, is not an insignificant sum. Many of us feel that money has been wasted in local government spending and could have been spent more effectively in different ways.
The Government have not said whether we shall have to dig deeper into our pockets simply to support this constitutional and political outrage, or whether we shall have a benefit either in terms of what presumably would be the philosophical thrust of a Conservative Government, which is reduced taxation, or, for those of us who take a


more pragmatic view of how best to allocate resources, whether it might give us the opportunity in areas outside the metropolitan counties to have some of the services that the Government have so far denied to us on the grounds of lack of money.
My understanding of the areas in which the GLC and the metropolitan councils operate suggests that the transfer of them, even if it results in a net saving once the reorganisation is completed, is likely in the short run to involve an increase in cost, at least when the transfer takes place. It is clear that the scheme has not been thoroughly thought through by the Government, particularly in terms of how the various functions will be performed.
The GLC has an overall regional planning function. Planning in general must be democratically accountable; if it is not, it is not planning but is part of a commissariat directive. It is difficult to see how such a function can be carried out by a multiplicity of bodies. The issue of transport is being dealt with separately, but I remain unconvinced that the reorganisation of London Transport is likely to save money, and from observations I have made and reports I have read, I suggest that it is likely to lead to a reduction in service and increased cost.
It is important when addressing themselves to the financial implications of this move that the Government take account of not just their area of responsibility —what local authorities and the Government raise—but the transfer of costs to the private sector or the private individual. It is all very well for the Government to say, "Look, Mr. Ratepayer or Mr. Taxpayer, we have saved you money because we have cut costs but, of course, we shall double the cost of your buses and the tube. We shall have to charge you for the arts and leisure and recreational facilities on a much higher scale. We may even have to charge you when the fire brigade turns out." In those circumstances, many people will see that that is not a saving but an increasing cost, at least in individual areas.
Even if the Government's measure produces an overall saving, it is highly likely that, within certain sectors, there will be cost increases and that individuals will take the cost on themselves. That is not the Government saving money but the Government passing the buck to the individual, which is what the Government have been doing during the five years they have been in office. For many people the savings that the Government claim to have achieved—as I have said, their record is not all that impressive—have often been simply a transfer of charges from what was originally provided by local authorities to individuals which means people on the lowest incomes are hardest hit. I should like the Government to examine the financial implications not only in simple terms but in terms of the transfer from Government to private responsibility, because that is an important area to be considered.
This is an interesting debate. Given that we have had a long-running debate over a wide range of issues, I must point out that the nitty-gritty and the justification for the measure have not been spelt out. We have had only vague statements that it might lead to some saving or improved efficiency. The real issue that the Government have wholly failed to grasp is that, having established these local authorities, the Government have created a kind of monster that they are unable to control by democratic means. The Government are using centralist, antidemocratic measures to abolish those authorities and to take control of the areas over which those authorities have

political control, instead of changing the basis of financing the local authorities, which is what the Bill should be seeking to do.
If the Government had tackled their pre-1979 election promise to reform rates, that measure particularly would have enabled us to take proper control of the local authorities without abolishing them. As has been said by other hon. Members, if the Government had tackled the issue of democratic elections, they would not have found themselves in the position in which most, if not all of those authorities have a one-party, Labour-controlled administration. In nearly every, if not every, case the Labour party was elected with overall control but on a minority vote. The majority voted against the Labour party.

Mr. Michie: Slip back into that 78 record.

Mr. Bruce: It is an important record. The Government sometimes pretend that they are interested in democracy but they are abolishing our civil liberties, decimating our constitution and attacking freedoms and divisions of responsibility. The Government have completely ducked the issue and have refused to take the opportunity to make local government more democratic. The Government have instead resorted to centralised dictatorial measures that they have not, even yet, been able to demonstrate or justify the financial criteria which, I understand, are the reasons they have brought forward the Bill. That is a pretence. The Government are not really interested in the savings that will accrue. They have not been able to demonstrate that there will be savings. The Government are interested in ensuring that they will take political control over authorities by a non-democratic measure.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Has my hon. Friend observed that Pravda and Izvestia are having a field day telling the Russian people how the British Prime Minister is destroying democratic elections and abolishing all the major non-parliamentary bodies that used to be elected, which happen to be in the hands of the Government's political opponents? Does not my hon. Friend think that that is extremely damaging to this country's reputation abroad?

Mr. Bruce: The interesting thing about that is that it puts a new complexion on the Russian perception of the lion Lady. Now her iron is being directed against the British people rather than against the external enemy.
I shall confine myself to the financial implications of the measure. I think that it is legitimate to say that the Government have used the argument that the measure will bring about a saving without demonstrating how that saving will be made, or what it will be. Therefore, it is right to tell people that, given that the Government have not made that justification, they are open to the accusation that this is not a financial measure—it is not brought forward in the interests of the ratepayer and the taxpayer, but it is a political measure in the interests of the Conservative party.
The Government's interpretation is short-sighted. It is already rebounding against the interests of the Conservative party, as the recent elections showed, and will do so increasingly in future years. The fact remains that the Government have an obligation to demonstrate that the measure will produce some financial benefits. They are a long way short of that. If the Bill is enacted


within three months it will be shown how the taxpayer and ratepayer, as well as individuals in the community, are affected. The transfer of charges to the ratepayer, the taxpayer and the private individual will not be regarded by those on a low income as a saving. It will be an extra expense for them. The Conservative Government were elected on a minority vote, but they had considerable support from the lower income groups. The Government will attack the very people who misguidedly elected them to office.
The Government should tell us what the effects of the measure will be on employment in the areas directly affected. Unemployment throughout the country is unprecedentedly high; the situation is getting worse. Later today we might—we might not—discuss the real jobs crisis at Bathgate. If the measure produces a saving, it will provide resources that could save the Bathgate plant and the community in Bathgate. Government policy has not only conspicuously failed to do that, but has contributed to the problems. Not many hon. Members accept the Government's periodic claim that there is an economic recovery, when we are faced almost weekly, certainly monthly, with such catastrophes. The evidence of a recovery is extremely superficial.
Against that background of high unemployment, for the Government to pursue a measure that is fundamentally political, that they have not demonstrated will produce financial benefits, that is likely to add to the unemployment burden, and, as the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) said, will increase the cost to the Exchequer of unemployment and social security is to contribute not to a saving but to additional cost to individuals and the public purse.
Therefore, we have every reason to press for the inclusion of the new clause and for recognition by the Government that they cannot honestly or honourably put forward such a measure, the prime justification for which is that it is likely to lead to savings, without spelling out how those savings will be made and addressing themselves to the more fundamental problem of how one makes a democratic society work when one is not prepared to have a democratic election system. How does one make the funding and financing of local government work in a way that allows local people to make local decisions? Local people have a great deal more knowledge and understanding of their affairs than any Government or civil servant. How can this apply when there is not a fair rating system or an effective local government financing system to enable local authorities to make their own decisions? The Government have failed to take this on board, and have embarked on a course that they will live to regret. They will reap the political whirlwind, and they have also created powers that a Government with even less liking for democracy than this Government could use—

Mr. Nellist: It is hard to imagine a Government with less liking for democracy than this one.

Mr. Bruce: It is perhaps hard to imagine. It is conceivable that there might be a Left-wing Labour Government.

Mr. Nellist: That would be more democratic than this one.

Mr. Cyril Smith: In the city of Manchester, every opposition Liberal councillor, all Conservatives and even every moderate Labour councillor has been removed from the policy committee by the Left-wing Labour group.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the new clause is on the report on financial consequences.

Mr. Bruce: I see the point, but it is reasonable to point out that the Government have justified the Bill on financial grounds, although they have yet to spell those out. However, they have not taken on the more fundamental point of reforming the democratic system.
It is unlikely that a Left-wing Labour Government could take power, because they do not have the support of the country. However, the electoral system does strange things, and if that happened the shire counties could be abolished because they are under Conservative control. We need a rather more sensible democratic and thought-through method of running local government than the piecemeal creation of new authorities that we had 15 years ago. That created a great deal of unnecessary extra bureaucracy and cost when it was created by a Conservative Government. The Government are changing the system not because that will save money, but because they failed to take political control.
The Committee should support the new clause because it will ensure that before implementing the Act, if it becomes one, the Government will spell out in considerable detail what changes will mean to the ratepayer, the taxpayer, the user of services and the people employed by the authority. The Government should be able to say what the Bill will achieve in terms of tax benefits, if that is the way in which they wish to go, or, if they are unable to pass on the benefit in taxes, what will be the benefit in a transfer to alternative services.
Many Labour Members — who are not here now —would, in spite of the Government's policies—

Mr. Bendall: I have not seen the hon. Member here all night.

Mr. Bruce: Hon. Members may vie as to who out-slept the others, but the reality is that the Government have not spelt out the savings that will accrue.
This new clause will give the Government the opportunity to demonstrate clearly that there will be savings and where the benefits will occur. Only then will they be justified in going on with a measure for which the only justification they have put forward is that it will provide financial benefit.
Until the Government have carried out a detailed analysis of the implications of the changes, and until they can prove to the House of Commons, the country, the voters and those living in areas both affected and not directly affected they should implement the measure, they should not do so. It is a test of good faith that the financial argument is the only justification. If they accept the new clause, it will be proof to the Committee and the country that they have no qualms that there will be savings. They should not effect the legislation until that proof has been demonstrated.

Mr. Michie: I hope that the Committee will support new clause 4 — mainly because it is a test of the


Government's ability to understand the implications of the Bill and whether they have the capacity to provide that financial statement within the three months provided in new clause 4. I suspect that they cannot do that.
I suspect that many parts of the Bill have not been thought out at all. The Government know that they cannot prove the savings within the three-months period. That is one reason why they will not accept the new clause.
The Government do not appear to understand that the county councils and the GLC, which were set up many years ago, have worked successfully in many cases. What happens to reclamation schemes, recreation schemes, country parks and other matters such as slag heaps that are presently being processed? What will happen in the interim period? Who will pay the cost once the Bill has taken shape? How much will it cost? No one seems to know that. It is the simplest thing in the world to say that the counties are useless — it is another thing to put something better in their place. Areas of south Yorkshire, where the county council has done a magnificent job on reclamation schemes, country parks, land now derelict because of industrial exploitation in years gone by, mines no longer in use and slag heaps that no longer need to be there.
A great deal of work has been done in that area, a great deal more is being processed, and there is more to come. Yet I do not suppose that the Government have given any heed to that, because such a service does not impress Conservatives, although it impresses those who live in a bad environment due to exploitation of industry. I challenge the Government to accept the new clause, because they might then prove that they have worked out all the implications and have done all their sums.
Most district councils do not administer their own staff pension schemes — it is all part of the county council system. All that must be worked out, and it is complicated. It will cost money. Have the Government thought of that? I doubt it very much. Have they discussed it and worked it out in any credible form?
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) made his democratic statement and then left the Committee. That is a pity, because I intend to take up his point. Democracy is when someone is voted into power and then carries out the mandate. I notice that 15 local authorities that have no overall majority end up voting with the Tories. If the Government think that they know what they are doing, they should accept new clause 4 and prove that they have done absolutely accurate costings.

Mr. Corbyn: It is difficult to imagine how this sordid Bill could be amended or improved. However, if new clause 4 were accepted, the Government would at least have to come clean about some of their extravagant claims about saving money.

Mr. Ashdown: If the Bill is so sordid, why is the hon. Gentleman's Front Bench not prepared to vote against it?

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is trying to sidetrack me. He knows perfectly well that the opposition to the Bill, outside Parliament as well as inside, has been organised and led by the Labour party. He also knows that the purpose of the Bill is to destroy Labour-controlled local authorities.
I shall not be diverted from my remarks on the new clause because Government hon. Members are not prepared to answer questions about the cost of abolition.

They make extravagant claims that the Bill is designed to save money but they do not say where those savings will be made. All the studies that have been made show the opposite to be the case.
It is significant that the only independent study—-the Coopers and Lybrand report—was not commissioned by the Government. It was commissioned by the local authorities themselves. It is also significant that, despite all that, Ministers still refuse to make public the level of opposition to the Bill or the amount of expert evidence raised against it. They refuse to consider the arguments.
We could discuss at great length the question of the publicity surrounding the Ball and its merits or demerits. That would be quite appropriate. However, I shall say only that a local authority is an elected authority and it is bound in honour to those who elected it to try to preserve the services that it was elected to provide. If the Government try to end that provision, what else should the local authorities be expected to do?
Not long ago, the Government, who have the temerity to lecture local authorities on political propaganda, set up a special department in the Ministry of Defence to rubbish the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and its leaders.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could tell us why, in so many cases, the district auditor has been called in to investigate gross extravagance and misappropriation of funds, especially throughout the Greater London area.

Mr. Corbyn: Anyone can call in the district auditor. I have served in a local authority for nine years. The district auditor was called in on many occasions, but on no occasion was anything found to be wrong. That is very often the case. [Interruption.] There have been many examples of dubious dealings in local authorities. No local authority has been more closely examined by auditors and lawyers, by independent so-called experts and by Bromley borough council, than the GLC. What has been found to be wrong? Nothing.

The First Deputy Chairman: We have already dealt with the auditing on a previous clause. We must stick to the clause that is before the Committee.

Mr. Corbyn: Thank you, Mr. Armstrong. It is easy to be sidetracked in this place. I must admit that hon. Members try it on. Your job must be very difficult.
I want to mention the financial consequences of abolition. Savings can be made only by the privatisation of services and the consequent cutting of wages or by massive redundancies. That is what lies behind the Bill and the powers it gives the Secretary of State. New clause 4 simply asks the Secretary of State, if he is so confident that his Bill will produce savings, why he is so afraid to say what they will be. The Government oppose new clause 4 because they do not know the answer and have a great deal to hide. They know only that, in the open-ended interim period, the Secretary of State will have unprecedented powers over local government to allow privatisation, sackings and the destruction of services.
This is a bad and dangerous Bill and the only way in which to improve it marginally is to accept new clause 4.

Sir George Young: I understand the reasons for new clause 4 and the Committee's legitimate interest in the financial consequences of our proposals for abolition. As


my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear several times, demands for detailed estimates are premature as much depends on the many decisions that successor bodies will take throughout 1985 and 1986.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) will find much of the information for which he asked in the speech that my right hon. Friend made on 9 May at columns 922–23 when he was pressed on savings and at column 978 when he was winding up the debate. I shall do what I can to shed some light on why we are confident that there will be savings and why we are sure that there will not be a dramatic explosion in spending and staff numbers. The aim is to remove an entire tier of local government and to disperse its services to authorities that already exist, acting independently or in partnership. The operational overheads of the upper-tier authorities will disappear, as will the duplication between them and lower-tier authorities. The lower-tier councils will examine critically the efficiency of the services that they inherit and I have no doubt that savings will be made.
The large expenditure and manpower budgets of the joint boards will be subject to limits set by the Government for the first three years of their existence. The Government will therefore be able—and intend—to exert downward pressure on manpower and expenditure in those areas. In view of those pointers to significant savings, the question is why has there been no detailed breakdown of the savings. Their precise extent will depend on the decisions that district and borough councils make. Nobody sitting in Whitehall can tell them how to organise and run local services. That applies especially to services in which there will now be divided responsibility and in regard to which districts and boroughs will be grafting a new function to their existing operations.
To make detailed estimates, the districts and boroughs need information about how the upper-tier authorities run services. Such information is not available because the upper-tier authorities are withholding it. That will change when the paving Bill becomes law because the authorities that face abolition will be obliged to provide information. That does not mean that no estimates can be made. In some areas the districts and boroughs have begun to advance preliminary figures for the savings that they could make. A recent study by Price Waterhouse showed savings of £20 million in just three metropolitan counties. That will probably mean £35 million across the six metropolitan counties.

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Sir George Young: I listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said and suggest that he does the same. It is clear that the figures are understated because no account is taken of sales of property and overhead savings. Indeed, those figures could be doubled when the closer scrutiny of services by the lower-tier authority is taken into account. These figures apply to the metropolitan counties alone, and do not include—

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Sir George Young: I shall give way when I have finished this passage of my speech.
Those savings do not include the Greater London area. Studies by four London boroughs have identified savings

of £35 million for management rationalisation and elimination of duplication, and it was estimated by them that total savings in London, including policy changes, could come to about £200 million in 1983–84. When one considers that Merseyside county council has increased its spending from £110 million in 1978–79 to £251 million in 1983–84, that the GLC is busily recruiting an extra 1,500 staff, and that the seven upper-tier councils were responsible for half the overspending by the whole of local government, it must be accepted that it would be extraordinary if abolition did not produce very substantial savings.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Sir George Young: I give way to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

Mr. Corbyn: I did not want to interrupt the Minister when he was giving the Committee figures, but I was puzzled by two things. First, what does he mean by downward pressure on manpower? Secondly, in the rather curious estimates that he has just given us, does he include the cost of redundancy payments as a result of the job losses clearly envisaged in the interim period, or are they to be spread over several years?

Sir George Young: The transitional costs, including redundancy payments, are of course legitimate costs to be set against the savings. I concede that straight away, and it must be put on the other side of the equation. The hon. Gentleman asked about the downward pressure on jobs, and I can only refer him to the answer given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on 20 December. I cannot add to that.

Mr. Michie: rose—

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Sir George Young: I should like to make a little more progress before hon. Members intervene.
Until the boroughs and districts have access to the detailed information about existing GLC and metropolitan services, and until the planning cycle leading up to 1986–87 begins, it will be impossible to make a comprehensive assessment of the financial consequences of abolition. Although some matters lie within the control of central Government, it is the local decisions that matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to do no more than report to the House such information as comes to him about those local decisions. But he gave a firm undertaking on Second Reading that he would keep Parliament fully informed on the costs and savings from this change. In particular the financial and explanatory memorandum on the main abolition Bill will state the expected effects on public expenditure.
I repeat that assurance to the Committee now. There is no purpose in placing a clause in the Bill to produce an unnecessary report before the useful information is likely to be available. The time to debate this is during the proceedings on the main Bill, and by that time I hope that information will have been made available to the boroughs and the districts, and that further indications will be forthcoming of the likely plans of those councils.
Against that background, I invite the Committee to reject the new clause.

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Bruce: I listened carefully to the Minister. He gives the impression that it is all a little bit "ify". If I heard him aright, he said that he had no doubt that savings would be made. He referred us to large chunks of Hansard, which I unfortunately do not happen to have handy, but the substance of our argument, that the Government have not spelt out in detail any justification for the Bill, remains. The Committee should force the inclusion of this new clause, because otherwise we are left simply with the Government's assurance.

Mr. Michie: rose—

Mr. Nellist: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are in Committee and hon. Members can speak again. However, as the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) moved the new clause, I shall call him last so that he can give us his reasons.

Mr. Michie: The Minister made the usual points about finance and the rest, but the interesting point was the doctrinaire aspect of the Government's argument. They know what they want to do but they are not sure how to do it or what the implications and costs will be. With regard to joint boards and fixed budgets, how much consideration has been given to the present expenditure of the GLC and the metropolitan councils? Will the budget be fixed at the county council level of expenditure or will it be fixed at the county council level of expenditure or will it be fixed arbitrarily so that county councils with contractual arrangements with private or public bodies will have to break agreements and promises? Can the Minister answer that?

Mr. Nellist: In moving the new clause I quoted the view of the Secretary of State for the Environment at the Conservative party conference that the burden of proof is on the person advocating change. The Minister's reply contained nothing to convince anyone inside or outside the Committee of the need for this change. Like his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Minister persists in citing a report on five of the 30-odd district councils involved which took Price Waterhouse four working days to produce. The Minister cites that as authoritative evidence of the savings to be made by abolition of the county councils. At the same time, he tells the Committee and working people outside that we have to wait months and months until this, that and the other legislation is passed before he can accurately report the savings to be made in the transitional period. One or other of those arguments cannot be right. One could think of a word to describe the Government's case.

Mr. Cohen: Bogus.

Mr. Nellist: That will do. The Minister cannot argue it both ways. Either Price Waterhouse can produce the information in four days or it will take months to obtain it.
I repeat, does the Minister stand by the original suggestion by the Secretary of State that £120 million would be "saved"? Does that imply that 9,000 county council jobs are to be axed? If so, the £7,000 per person per year in dole, supplementary benefit and lost tax and national insurance immediately adds a further £63 million to the redundancy costs.
The Minister said that it would be premature to make any prediction as we must await future decisions of future

bodies. If that is so, how can he assert that the exercise is designed to save money? If there is currently duplication between county councils and district councils, which I do not believe, will he tell us where the duplication is in he west midlands fire service, the police service highways, transport or consumer services? They are all separate functions, now run on a regional basis by the county council and there is no duplication. If those bodies are split into six of seven components, it will cost extra money because more people will need to be employed to maintain the services.
The provisions will not save money in the west midlands, provide extra jobs for the 100,000 men who have been on the dole for more than a year, save money on rates or help one third of the families who live on or below the poverty line.
The clause must be inserted to expose the Government's cover-up. On the one hand they claim without proof that the measure will save ratepayers £120 million, and on the other they will not admit that the net cost could be £165 million. The Government are unable, or unwilling, to explain that gap of £285 million.
Some hon. Members do not believe that the Government know the answer, but I believe that the Minister has done his sums, and knows that the net cost is so high that it is better to con people and pass the Bill before letting the cat out of the bag some time in the future. If he told us now of the huge cost that will be inflicted on working people, many more people would oppose the measure. That is why it is so important to insert the new clause into the Bill.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 35, Noes 192.

Division No. 327]
[9.45 am


AYES


Alton, David
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Ashdown, Paddy
Pavitt, Laurie


Ashton, Joe
Randall, Stuart


Barron, Kevin
Rooker, J. W.


Beith, A. J.
Sedgemore, Brian


Bruce, Malcolm
Skinner, Dennis


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Cohen, Harry
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Torney, Tom


Craigen, J. M.
Wainwright, R.


Freud, Clement
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Howells, Geraint
Wigley, Dafydd


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Woodall, Alec


Kirkwood, Archibald
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Marek, Dr John



Maxton, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michie, William
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Mr. John Cartwright.


Nellist, David





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Amess, David
Braine, Sir Bernard


Arnold, Tom
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Bright, Graham


Batiste, Spencer
Brinton, Tim


Bellingham, Henry
Brooke, Hon Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Bruinvels, Peter


Berry, Sir Anthony
Butterfill, John


Best, Keith
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Cash, William


Bottomley, Peter
Chope, Christopher






Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Maclean, David John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Maginnis, Ken


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Malone, Gerald


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Marland, Paul


Coombs, Simon
Mather, Carol


Cope, John
Maude, Hon Francis


Corrie, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Couchman, James
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Monro, Sir Hector


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Moore, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Farr, John
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Favell, Anthony
Moynihan, Hon C.


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Needham, Richard


Forman, Nigel
Nelson, Anthony


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Neubert, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Nicholls, Patrick


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Norris, Steven


Freeman, Roger
Ottaway, Richard


Gale, Roger
Page, John (Harrow W)


Galley, Roy
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Parris, Matthew


Glyn, Dr Alan
Pawsey, James


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Goodlad, Alastair
Porter, Barry


Gorst, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Gow, Ian
Powley, John


Greenway, Harry
Price, Sir David


Gregory, Conal
Proctor, K. Harvey


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Raffan, Keith


Grist, Ian
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Gummer, John Selwyn
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Renton, Tim


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hanley, Jeremy
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Rowe, Andrew


Hawksley, Warren
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hayes, J.
Ryder, Richard


Hayhoe, Barney
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Henderson, Barry
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hind, Kenneth
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hirst, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Holt, Richard
Speller, Tony


Hooson, Tom
Spencer, Derek


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Squire, Robin


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Stanley, John


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Stern, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Jessel, Toby
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sumberg, David


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Key, Robert
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


King, Rt Hon Tom
Temple-Morris, Peter


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Terlezki, Stefan


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Knowles, Michael
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lamont, Norman
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Lang, Ian
Thornton, Malcolm


Latham, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Tracey, Richard


Lawrence, Ivan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Viggers, Peter


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Waldegrave, Hon William


Lightbown, David
Walden, George


Lilley, Peter
Waller, Gary


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Ward, John


Lord, Michael
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Luce, Richard
Watson, John


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Watts, John


MacGregor, John
Wheeler, John


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Whitfield, John





Wiggin, Jerry



Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Noes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. John Major and


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Douglas Hogg.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 9

RATE PRECEPTS FOR 1985–86

'No breach of the duty upon a metropolitan county council or the Greater London Council to issue a precept under section 11 of the General Rate Act 1967 shall be held to occur if that council does not issue a precept for the financial year 1985–86 until after the date of an election of councillors to that authority following the making of an order under subsection (2) of section 1 of this Act.'.—[Mr. Meadowcroft]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is a straightforward and practical addition and improvement to the Bill. It covers a loophole that the Government have apparently missed. I trust that they have done so unwittingly and that they will therefore appreciate that the new clause has a valid point that assists the Government in their work in trying to implement this legislation and that they will readily accept the new clause.
The Bill's proposals are somewhat strange. Its curious timetable requires that the outgoing elected GLC and metropolitan county councils have to fix a precept and determine a budget which the incoming appointed body will implement. If one ponders the problem that is posed by the Bill without the new clause it is clear that there would be administrative difficulties even with the best of good will, which may not be forthcoming with all the provocation that councillors have experienced.
For instance, the appointed members of the metropolitan counties will number roughly half the existing members of county councils and will not necessarily have any experience of the work of the county councils. It has been a welcome feature of the different parties' ways of working in the two-tier system in recent years that they have discouraged the dual mandate. That is right. As one who was for a time on both county and city councils, for all sorts of reasons I thought that it was wrong. I was pleased at times to be able to opt out. It is not for us who have one post to deny others the chance to exercise their responsibilities and leadership. Therefore, those who come from district councils and are appointed as members of the interim committees will probably have no experience of county council work and powers.
10 am
Some of the members may also be statute barred if they want to stand for election. I have not yet heard the Government tell us whether people who may be statute barred because they are employees of an authority will be eligible to be part of an interim committee. The first point is that the situation is fraught with problems because of the probable inexperience and number of members of the new committees.
Secondly, the committees are likely to have a different political complexion and, therefore, different and legitimate political priorities in spending from those of the existing GLC and some metropolitan counties. I think that it was the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) who said that that would represent to him the


possibility of the Government being charged with the most obvious political gerrymander for 150 years. Certainly the Bill poses a practical problem, because the outgoing elected body fixing the budget for the incoming body will have a different complexion.
Thirdly, the incoming members may well be unrepresentative of the political complexion of the district council. You would rule me out of order, Mr. Armstrong, if I were to refer in detail to a later amendment, but it is germane to this new clause that, despite a rather bizarre attempt in the Bill at proportional representation—I suppose even bizarre attempts at proportional representation should be welcomed by some parts of the Committee—

Mr. John Major: It is a bizarre concept.

Mr. Meadowcroft: A Government Whip tells me that it is a bizarre concept. I am glad that he recognises that there are bizarre points in his Government's Bill in this respect. Nevertheless, we have to deal with the Bill as it is before us. I suspect that it presents great problems for the Government as well because, so far as I know, it is the first time that the concept of having to have a balance of political forces is to be written into legislation. I do not know whether the Government envisage that parties will have to be registered so that their names would be a registered trade mark which would have to go through a legal system. Certainly, given the numbers coming forward from the districts, they are bound often to be unrepresentative.
Fourthly, and possibly most significant in relation to the problems of the Bill as it stands, the outgoing councils are likely to be embittered by the process to which they have been subjected. Despite all the Government's attempts to compel obedience, not least, for instance, by the almost futile detail that they could demand for their purposes, they may still face the problem that every action brings an equal and opposite reaction. That is as true in politics, alas, as it is in the world of physics. There will be problems. The efforts of the Government to compel obedience and the draconian powers they are assuming over the supply of information will probably be counterproductive to the process of budget making and the formulation of estimates in the interim committees.
Clearly, sensible local councillors would wish to reflect both the economic situation in which they find themselves locally and the public preference for priorities as shown by the ballot box. If it is accepted, as is conceivable, that the main provisions of the paving Bill may fail to be implemented, surely it would be appropriate to write into the Bill safeguards for councils and councillors who wish to await the result of elections.
I understand that the Secretary of State has said that elections might have to be reinstated in such circumstances. If under clause 1(2), orders had to be made, elections might well have to be reinstated. The strange dilemma would therefore arise of an outgoing council fixing a budget with a possibility of wishing to have a different set of priorities based on the results of elections. It is important to appreciate that in that circumstance there might be some ambivalence about the provisions relating to the responsibility of those councillors for the financial affairs of the local authority. It is by no means new for an incoming controlling party to alter a budget that has been agreed before elections.
That has happened in many instances where the new local authority, after elections in May, has sought to alter the spending within a total budget that has been previously agreed, or to alter the spending within a budget possibly by changing the amount taken from balances, or the amount that is to be spent on capital account.
I do not believe that any hon. Member in the Committee, given that we are all steeped in the political process, would endeavour to argue that that is in any way illegitimate. It is accepted that the results of elections often change the circumstances and the financial situation in which the estimates have been drawn up. If that is accepted as the normal practice within local authorities, in the rather strange circumstances that are bound to be faced in the metropolitan counties and in the GLC, if we have to have elections reinstated, in the event that the Bill's main principles fail, it seems appropriate and proper to have it written into the Bill that those councillors who sought to implement political priorities, as perceived through the ballot box, ought not to risk any sort of penalty because they did not seek to make those adjustments and priorities clear beforehand.
The severe restrictions in the Bill make it important that that be spelt out, and the clause endeavours to do that. It is important, because there may well be problems in the change-over. If one runs to the last minute, there may be problems. If the Bill goes unamended to another place and is sent back, in whatever form, by their Lordships to the Committee, there may well be problems.
I therefore hope that the Government will accept that the clause as proposed is a practical, worthwhile and helpful attempt to assist them out of a position in which I believe they would not wish to be placed if, by any chance, the main principles were to fall. Because it is important to make it clear that no penalty would attach to individuals who delayed the budgeting if the Bill failed, I urge acceptance of the clause.

Sir George Young: With respect to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft), I do not think that his amendment covers a loophole. It is technically defective, and it could—unintentionally perhaps, from his point of view—have the effect that there would be no duty on the GLC or on the metropolitan county councils to issue any precept for 1985–86. I understand the intention of the clause, which appears to be to waive the duty of the GLC and of the metropolitan county councils to issue a precept sufficient to meet their expenditure for 1985–86 by 11 March 1985, should an order repealing the Bill be made, and election be held. From the hon. Gentleman's remarks, he would wish a precept to be held until after the elections, if I followed his argument correctly.
The amendment could be interpreted to mean that, unless elections were held after the making of such an order under the Bill, there would be no duty on the GLC or on the metropolitan county councils to issue any precept at all. For that reason, the clause is technically defective. However, that is not the primary reason for rejecting it.
In the normal course of events, authorities must frequently budget and issue precepts and rates in advance of an election. That happens every three or four years. If an order were to be made repealing the Bill, we should expect the 1985 elections to go ahead as soon as practicable. But even in the normal course of events, they would not have taken place until May, and precepts would have had to be sent by early March. This has never caused


any problems in the past. Authorities have always managed to make their precepts on time, despite uncertainties about the future.
Likewise, the party that wins the election finds that it must budget within the precept set by the preceding council. Again, that is one of the realities of local government life. I cannot see the justification for waiving the important duty on the upper-tier metropolitan authorities to produce valid precepts for 1985–86, and in good time, whether the elections have been suspended or reinstated. For that reason, I urge the Committee to reject the new clause.

Mr. Meadowcroft: While the Minister complained about the faulty drafting of the new clause, the Committee will be aware that its wording was neither mine nor my colleagues. Because of the failure of the occupants of the Labour Front Bench to move their own amendments and new clauses, we on these Benches have been forced into a rescue operation in the cause of local democracy. In other words, the new clause might have been better drafted had it been in different hands originally.
I accept that it could allow the GLC and metropolitan counties not to make any precept in the circumstances described by the Minister. But even that, as we have discovered in Liverpool, does not mean that the council goes out of existence or has no resources to spend; it is possible to bridge that gap. I am not suggesting that that is by any means the perfect solution, but it is possible to do it.
It is still unclear to me whether, in the circumstances of the Bill, individuals who might wish to take a different view after the elections, as opposed to before, are protected if they choose not to make a precept until after they have seen the results of those elections. Normally, as the Minister said, that is not in doubt. But because it is still unclear, I must press the matter to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 39, Noes 194.

Division No. 328]
[10.10 am


AYES


Alton, David
Michie, William


Ashdown, Paddy
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Ashton, Joe
Nellist, David


Barron, Kevin
O'Brien, William


Beith, A. J.
Park, George


Bell, Stuart
Pavitt, Laurie


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Randall, Stuart


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Sedgemore, Brian


Cohen, Harry
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Conlan, Bernard
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Wainwright, R.


Forrester, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Freud, Clement
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Garrett, W. E.
Woodall, Alec


Howells, Geraint
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Kirkwood, Archibald



Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Marek, Dr John
Mr. John Cartwright and


Maxton, John
Mr. Charles Kennedy.


Meadowcroft. Michael





NOES


Adley, Robert
Arnold, Tom


Alexander, Richard
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.


Amess, David
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)





Batiste, Spencer
Key, Robert


Bellingham, Henry
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Bendall, Vivian
King, Rt Hon Tom


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Best, Keith
Knowles, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Lamont, Norman


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Lang, Ian


Bottomley, Peter
Latham, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Lawler, Geoffrey


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Lawrence, Ivan


Braine, Sir Bernard
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Bright, Graham
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Brinton, Tim
Lightbown, David


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lilley, Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Bruinvels, Peter
Lord, Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Luce, Richard


Butterfill, John
Lyell, Nicholas


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
MacGregor, John


Cash, William
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Chope, Christopher
Maclean, David John


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Maginnis, Ken


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Major, John


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Malone, Gerald


Coombs, Simon
Marland, Paul


Cope, John
Mather, Carol


Corrie, John
Maude, Hon Francis


Couchman, James
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dickens, Geoffrey
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Monro, Sir Hector


Farr, John
Moore, John


Favell, Anthony
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Forman, Nigel
Moynihan, Hon C.


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Needham, Richard


Franks, Cecil
Nelson, Anthony


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Neubert, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Nicholls, Patrick


Gale, Roger
Norris, Steven


Galley, Roy
Ottaway, Richard


Glyn, Dr Alan
Page, John (Harrow W)


Goodlad, Alastair
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Gorst, John
Parris, Matthew


Gow, Ian
Pawsey, James


Greenway, Harry
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gregory, Conal
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Porter, Barry


Grist, Ian
Powell, William (Corby)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Price, Sir David


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hanley, Jeremy
Raffan, Keith


Harvey, Robert
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Renton, Tim


Hawksley, Warren
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hayes, J.
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hayhoe, Barney
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Henderson, Barry
Rowe, Andrew


Hind, Kenneth
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hirst, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Holt, Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hooson, Tom
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Speller, Tony


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Spencer, Derek


Irving, Charles
Squire, Robin


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Stanley, John


Jessel, Toby
Stern, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)






Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Walden, George


Sumberg, David
Waller, Gary


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Ward, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Watson, John


Terlezki, Stefan
Watts, John


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Wheeler, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Whitfield, John


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wood, Timothy


Thornton, Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tracey, Richard



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Tim Sainsbury and


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 10

STREAMLINING THE CITIES"

'Within one month of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall publish in such form as he thinks fit all the responses he has received in response to the proposals included in the White Paper "Streamling the Cities" (Cmnd. 9063)' .— [Mr. Freud.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Freud: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause seems like a good idea to me. I am absolutely astonished that this well-constructed clause, in the names of four senior members of the Labour party, is left to me to argue, but I am pleased to do it. I have a deep interest in freedom of information. In the 1978–79 Session of Parliament, I was fortunate to come top in the private Member's Bill ballot. My Bill went through Committee and would have gone to the Report stage on the day that the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), announced that he was going to the country for an election.
This is not a Liberal new clause, but it is much in keeping with those that we tabled, which were not taken up, that sought to further and encourage access to local government information for local government electors. We believe in that. On 9 May, the Under-Secretary was asked whether he was
satisfied that the list of responses to Cmnd. 9063 placed in the Library was accurately prepared by his Department.
The Minister replied:
Yes, sir, although it is a matter of judgment as to what might be classed as a major national organisation." — [Official Report, 9 May 1984; Vol. 59, c. 873.]
On the face of it, that is a strange and convoluted reply, and the Minister was clearly several jumps ahead of his audience. I believe that what he meant was that the only replies that were published in that document were those in respect of major national organisations, and as one of those was the Liberal party, I grant that in that respect he was accurate.
Open and fair government is unlikely under the present Administration. Our commitment is clear, and the public should know that. I remember that, in 1945, after six years of letters that were date-stamped "Somewhere in England", signs that were turned round and newspapers that never gave detailed information, Herbert Morrison, the then Home Secretary, said that the people had a right to know. We believe that, and they do not just have the right to know what the major national organisations said

on a command document. They have the right to know what response there is to any document. It is wrong that if an organisation writes to the Secretary of State for the Environment to give its view of "Streamlining the Cities", its view is not published because the author of the publication, letter or document is not sufficiently major an organisation.
There is much that the public should know about this Bill, the strangely named Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill. If the Government had a Bill on castration, they would call it the Fertility Provisions Bill, because it is clear that their concept of provision is the opposite to ours. "Provision" should not mean taking away. Look where one will in the analysis of the response of the Department of the Environment, there is hardly a kind word in it. It begins early on with the criticisms, when the financial consultants Coopers and Lybrand concluded:
There are unlikely to be any net savings as a result of structural changes proposed by the Government, and there could be significant extra costs.
It is right that that should be published and shown to people. Not only that, but it should have been shown at the same time as it was said that "Streamlining the Cities" meant destroying democracy.
The CBI is a universally respected body. It is on record as concluding on trading standards in London:
The experience … leads us to believe that devolving this service to the districts will not achieve the consistency we need and will increase costs.
That, from a body that is a considerable friend of the Government. The National Association of Head Teachers, which no one could accuse of being politically motivated, said:
The White Paper implies that the Government expects to make monetary savings … yet contains no firm evidence to back up this conviction.
I spoke to a headmaster who was worried about the lack of publicity and the lack of information of the Bill. He made a valid point when he said that, in schools where the governors are members of the board of management for the school, if they are nominated by the district or county council they can claim no expenses for attending governors' meetings.
I believe that, when councillors are no longer elected, when they are appointed and pushed on to boards of management of schools, by virtue of the fact that they have been appointed they will be able to claim expenses for travelling and attendance. That is just one instance where no publicity has been given and where almost certainly extra expense will accrue to the Government if the Bill is passed.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman identify a single education authority which, under the Bill, will transfer from an elected council to an appointed body? I know of none.

Mr. Freud: I am glad to answer that question. One not only knows of none, one knows nothing of anything. My whole point in trying to introduce the new clause is that we should know more. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Waldegrave: There is no secret. My right hon. Friend has laid out the proposals. ILEA is the only London education authority affected and it will be directly elected. None of the other authorities concerned are education authorities. There is no secrecy.

Mr. Freud: I accept that it will be directly elected—but there will be an interregnum during which, between the abolition of the directly elected boards of managers and governors and the creation a year later of elected representatives, appointees will be involved.
The Minister says that there is no secret, having told me that there would be no unelected members. But in the interregnum there is almost certain to be a greater expense as a result of the measure—but we have not been told.
I have a document entitled "Analysis of Responses and Comments on Lack of Inquiries". We should read the comments on that. The Association of London Authorities complained, as did the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. It is a selection of responses, and I am tempted to read some of them. If someone is trying to introduce a greater freedom of information, all responses should be laid on the table and looked at by anyone who wishes to do so. We gave evidence on the way in which the Government are putting their proposals forward and the procedure for enactment, both of which are violations of the United Kingdom constitution —thanks to the Government, and no thanks to the Official Opposition, notable by their absence. I welcome their one representative. I fear that he is sitting on the Front Bench so that I might not sit there and take over.
The Leisure Studies Association has given evidence, as has the National Chamber of Trade. Although the White Paper categorically asserts that abolition of the MCCs will remove conflict and uncertainty, save money and provide a system which is simpler for the public to understand, there is no supporting evidence.
New clause 10, so ably tabled by the Labour party, was shamefully ignored by Labour Members and left to whomever happens to be responsibly opposing the Bill. I say "responsibly opposing it", because I do not believe that there is any conflict on this side of the Committee that today the Liberal party is the official Opposition. If we look now, we see a pretty sorry official Opposition, and it is time that we took over.
This is a good clause, and I commend it to the Committee. The Minister has been amazingly reticent while listening to our points of view, although at one point, about when I was going through the wall at 5.15 am or 5.30 am, I heard him say, "I shall reflect on this." To date we have had reflection, but no genuflection. We have had the odd look of contentment, but he has not given us a thing. I say to him now, more than 17 hours after we started the debate, that this is a great opportunity for the Minister to go down in his party — I use the words deliberately—as someone who listened to an argument; and I know that he would support the concept of greater freedom of information.
I accept that it is easier to govern if one does not tell people what one is doing, and one does not let people know what others think. But as the Conservative party will soon be occupying the Opposition Benches, there will doubtless soon be similar arguments coming from Conservative Members. Greater access to information is good, and I hope that he will reflect before he denies it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall mention one exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. One argument that we have heard is that the Government asked for submissions and took them into account, and that the result of that process will be the

substantive Bill to deal with replacement authorities for the GLC and the metropolitan authorities. A step on that road would be for the Minister to say that, after the Bill has gone through the House—if it does—we would see the information that at present is known and available only to those working at the Department of the Environment.
On education in London, the proposal is that we shall move from an elected Inner London education authority in 1984 to an appointed ILEA in 1985 — for the first time since 1870—and in 1986 to another elected ILEA. It would be helpful to know that we shall see the evidence for certain. When the debate on the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities", which anticipated this Bill, began last October, we were told that there would be no directly elected ILEA but an indirectly elected ILEA—a joint board for education in London. The Secretary of State for Education and Science told the House in February that, as a result of the arguments put to him, which had overwhelming merit, he had decided that ILEA should continue to be elected, although—these are almost his exact words—he could not say then whether the body should be elected in 1985 or 1986. It has been confirmed that in 1986, after a one-year interregnum, we will again have a directly elected ILEA.
It is widely rumoured that the concession that the Government will make on the principle of elected authorities will be made in the other place and will take the form of an announcement that there will be an elected ILEA from next year. If that has been discussed and is a possibility, I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary would do the Committee the courtesy of not denying it outright.
If that is what the Government are to do, they must be doing it because the arguments presented in the documents and in the debates in the House and in this Committee have been so overwhelming that they prove the need for that argument to be made available to the public so that the right decision will be made.
We welcomed the Government's step half-way down the road, when the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced that there would again be, in the future, an ILEA that was not indirectly but directly elected. We would welcome even more warmly an announcement that those elections would take place next year. If the Government have that in mind, even as a possibility, it must be because the arguments adduced in support of that course of action have been overwhelming and that testifies to the propriety and suitability of following the arguments that have been made to the Government in these submissions. If the Government are willing to argue the case and sometimes concede—as they have on ILEA — that they have been wrong, it would be appropriate, democratic and responsible for them to accept that within three months of the passage of the Bill, the responses to the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" will be published. Perhaps there will not be a Royal Commission — although that is a fundamentally important way of consulting and of making the right decisions on behalf of those whom we represent—but at least we would be able to see the arguments that have been submitted to the Government and, on that basis do a better job in the future.

Mr. Waldegrave: I can certainly give the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) the assurance that I support him in his general view that it is


the duty of Government to make information available unless there are very powerful reasons for not doing so. It is rather ironic that Herbert Morrison was called in aid on this point. Although he invented a good slogan, there can have been few more secretive Governments in the history of the United Kingdom than his Government, who, for example, adopted an atomic defence policy for this country without telling the Cabinet, let alone the nation.
I would argue with the hon. Gentleman about the proper approach. I believe that the idea of a freedom of information Act sits uncomfortably with British ways of doing things, and that the Select Committees of this House provide the means by which frontiers are pushed forward. We can argue about the means without arguing about the objective. The problem here is a narrower and less dramatic one. The exercise that we conducted after the publication of the White Paper was a normal consultation exercise. It was not a public inquiry, although hon. Members have argued that it should have been.
In such exercises, people write to us on the assumption that they are writing in confidence. If we had said, "Write to us for publication" we would have been involved in a different kind of operation. There might have been no precedent for it. That is not the way in which the Government normally proceed. People are free to publish their own evidence, and most of the principal interested parties have done so. The main local authority associations, many of the voluntary associations, and various trade unions have made their evidence public by sending it to honk. Members or by publishing it by means of press conferences or in other ways. The evidence remains their property. It remains their property and they therefore have the right to publish it if they so wish. We received many representations in letters, for example, that were not designed to be published. It would have been a signal reversal of the rules of the game in the Government consultation exercise if we had published such letters.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is using the debate to get some information that he wants on an important matter. I can understand why. It concerns what the Government are thinking. Publishing what was written to us last January would not be material in that respect. The lobbyists on the issue have made their stance clear. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science agreed with one thrust of argument and changed the policy. The information for which the hon. Gentleman is asking is different from that which we received last January. He might find in it arguments that support a further line, but he does not need to read it to know what that line of argument is.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I think that the Minister will accept that one of the major criticisms of the Government on this issue is, unusually, secrecy about the consultation process. If one set of arguments were persuasive, they must have outweighed contrary evidence. The Government's case would be enhanced if the arguments were on the table and the Government could be seen to have won.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is making too much of this point. I suspect that with every such Government consultation exercise the Opposition of the day have made a row. I also suspect that the row was a little hollow. I do not believe that any major argument that

has been advanced by any interest group of importance is not well known. If it is not well known, that is the responsibility of the group or individual doing the lobbying. There are right hon. and hon. Members who write, journalists who write and television and radio programmes. The matter has been of intense interest. It is not for the Government to publish what is written to them in consultation exercises. There has been no unusual secrecy and we have followed precedent in this regard exactly.
The precedents that were once quoted against us were no precedents as they were based on the Government putting in the Library evidence presented to public inquiries. Such evidence is already in the public domain and is quite different. The Government do not intend to suppress—it would be futile to do so— argument on these matters, or to hide the arguments. Trying would have been a signal failure of policy. There is not one area in which the arguments have not raged quite furiously. I reject the hon. Gentleman's accusation of unprecedented secrecy. It would be wrong to change the rules of the game retrospectively and to tell people that, although they wrote to us in the usual form of consultation, their letters would now be published. I therefore ask the House to reject new clause 10.

Mr. Freud: This is a short new clause. We are simply asking whether
the Secretary of State shall publish in such form as he thinks fit all the responses he has received".
The Minister has told us that people write in confidence. Why should they do so? Why is it not possible to say "If you do not want the letter to be published, tell us that.. and we shall not publish it."? An analysis could then be made saying that so many letters had been received expressing a desire that they should not be published. As it might help people, it could be said for the record that so many of the letters were for, and so many were against. The rest of them could then be seen.
I have always complained that the trouble with our form of secret government is that everything is secret unless we make it non-secret. My Official Information Bill of 1978–79 sought to change that, and to say that everything shall be public unless it is deemed to be too delicate or sensitive, or prejudicial to the good running of the country, defence or industry. That is all that we are asking for. We want the response to be published as the Secretary of State thinks fit.

Mr. Waldegrave: I have intervened briefly to reply to whether it would be worth writing again to all the people. I shall not hide behind the amount of work and expense that would be involved in that, although it would be an enormous operation. But at the end we would only end up where we started. I suspect that many of those who wrote to us not expecting publication would say that their letters could not be published and that those who wrote expecting their letters to be published have already published them. Thus, we would be no further forward after a great deal of effort. I just do not think that that is practical.

Mr. Freud: With respect, I do not believe it. If people wrote to the Secretary of State saying that they were worried about this, or approved of that, they would have thought carefully about it before writing and would not mind publication, even if they minded identification. I welcome the wealth of Labour Members who have joined


us since I last spoke. We now have three Labour Members in the Chamber, so they are pouring in —[HON. MEMBERS: "We have been here all night."] I pay great tribute to that.
I ask hon. Members to look carefully at new clause 10 and to vote in favour of it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 46, Noes 210.

Division No. 329]
[10.50 am


AYES


Alton, David
Madden, Max


Ashdown, Paddy
Marek, Dr John


Ashton, Joe
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Barron, Kevin
Michie, William


Beith, A. J.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Bell, Stuart
Nellist, David


Boyes, Roland
O'Brien, William


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Clay, Robert
Park, George


Cohen, Harry
Pavitt, Laurie


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pike, Peter


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Randall, Stuart


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Sedgemore, Brian


Forrester, John
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Freud, Clement
Wainwright, R.


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Wigley, Dafydd


Howells, Geraint
Woodall, Alec


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Kennedy, Charles



Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Mr. John Cartright and


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Couchman, James


Alexander, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Amess, David
Dickens, Geoffrey


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Batiste, Spencer
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bellingham, Henry
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bendall, Vivian
Emery, Sir Peter


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Berry, Sir Anthony
Farr, John


Best, Keith
Favell, Anthony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fletcher, Alexander


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forman, Nigel


Braine, Sir Bernard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Franks, Cecil


Bright, Graham
Freeman, Roger


Brinton, Tim
Gale, Roger


Brooke, Hon Peter
Galley, Roy


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bruinvels, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bryan, Sir Paul
Goodlad, Alastair


Butterfill, John
Gow, Ian


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Greenway, Harry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gregory, Conal


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Cash, William
Grist, Ian


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Chope, Christopher
Hanley, Jeremy


Churchill, W. S.
Harvey, Robert


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hawksley, Warren


Coombs, Simon
Hayes, J.


Cope, John
Hayhoe, Barney


Corrie, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David





Henderson, Barry
Page, John (Harrow W)


Hill, James
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hind, Kenneth
Parris, Matthew


Hirst, Michael
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Holt, Richard
Porter, Barry


Hooson, Tom
Powell, William (Corby)


Hordern, Peter
Powley, John


Howard, Michael
Price, Sir David


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Raffan, Keith


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Hunter, Andrew
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Irving, Charles
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knowles, Michael
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Lamont, Norman
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Latham, Michael
Speller, Tony


Lawler, Geoffrey
Spencer, Derek


Lawrence, Ivan
Squire, Robin


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Stanbrook, Ivor


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stanley, John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stern, Michael


Lightbown, David
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lilley, Peter
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Luce, Richard
Sumberg, David


Lyell, Nicholas
Taylor, John (Solihull)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


MacGregor, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Terlezki, Stefan


Maclean, David John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Madel, David
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Maginnis, Ken
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Major, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Malone, Gerald
Thurnham, Peter


Marland, Paul
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marlow, Antony
Tracey, Richard


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mates, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mather, Carol
Viggers, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Waldegrave, Hon William


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Walden, George


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Waller, Gary


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Ward, John


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Monro, Sir Hector
Warren, Kenneth


Moore, John
Watson, John


Morris, M, (N'hampton, S)
Watts, John


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Wheeler, John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Whitfield, John


Neale, Gerrard
Wood, Timothy


Needham, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Nelson, Anthony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Neubert, Michael



Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Noes:


Norris, Steven
Mr. Ian Lang and


Ottaway, Richard
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 1

NUMBER OF COUNCILLORS TO BE APPOINTED BY CONSTITUENTCOUNCILS

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 129, in page 9, leave out lines 7 to 42 and insert:


London borough
Number of councillors of Greater London Council


Westminster
4


Camden
4


Islington
4


Hackney
4


Tower Hamlets
4


Greenwich
6


Lewisham
6


Southwark
6


Lambeth
6


Wandsworth
6


Hammersmith and Fulham
4


Kensington and Chelsea
4


Waltham Forest
6


Redbridge
6


Havering
6


Barking and Dagenham
4


Newham
6


Bexley
6


Bromley
8


Croydon
8


Sutton
4


Merton
4


Kingston upon Thames
4


Richmond upon Thames
4


Hounslow
4


Hillingdon
6


Ealing
6


Brent
6


Harrow
4


Barnet
8


Haringey
4


Enfield
6


The amendment relates to schedule 1 and, in particular, to the number of GLC councillors who will be appointed from the members of the relevant borough councils. Amendment No. 126, which is to be debated next, deals with a similar provision for the metropolitan districts and their nominees for the years 1985–86 to the six interim metropolitan counties.
Schedule 1 is referred to in clause 2(4), which provides:
Each constituent council shall not later than 1st April 1985—
(a)"—
that is the part that we are now concerned with—
appoint from among its members as councillors of the Greater London Council or … such number of persons as is specified in relation to that constituent council in Schedule 1 to this Act".
Schedule 1 specifies a certain number of councillors to be elected for each of the 32 London boroughs. The numbers vary from at least two to, at the most, four. So different boroughs will be entitled to nominate two, three or four councillors to the interim GLC.
The provision was introduced in the White Paper where the Government promised — a surprising, unusual and unexpected concession—that they would seek to ensure that for the year 1985–86 the boroughs' appointed representatives on the GLC shall so far as practicable reflect the balance of parties in those nominating councils. If the Government's plans are to be carried to fulfilment, 1985–86 will be the last year in the life of the GLC.
It will be immediately apparent to the Committee that for the first time the concept of the political party is referred to in legislation. On Second Reading it was clearly pointed out that we have not yet had to grapple with the definition of a political party in legislation. There are many circumstances in which, without definition clauses, it would be difficult to know how, on the premise which the Government are proposing, the figures in the schedule will reflect the balance of all parties in the 32 councils.
I gather that it is a matter of increasing public interest today that the City of London is missing from the list of local authorities which will nominate people to the interim GLC. Approximately 5,000 electors are resident in the City of London. At an earlier stage in our deliberations the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said that at that stage he did not believe that the point that the City of London electors were excluded was valid. However, he graciously admitted subsequently that the Government would consider that matter because it appeared that the schedule had one initial defect—that the electors of the City of London, who are at the moment represented on the GLC, will not be under the present proposals for the year 1985–86.

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that I was unfair to the hon. Gentleman during the previous debate in which the point that he made was correct.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that intervention. It means that at some stage and in some form the City of London will have to be added to the list. That is right because it is the 33rd first-tier local authority in London.
I wish to revert to the point that I made about the balance of parties. The balance of parties would mean, for example, that the independents in some of the London boroughs, whom one must presume will be there until the end of their period of election—in all these cases we are talking about May 1986 for that purpose—must be considered. We would need to know whether they would count as parties. The best example and the one with which I am familiar is my own borough, the London borough of Southwark.
At the moment the borough has two—there its an argument about a third—people elected who stood as independent labour and tenants' candidates. A third was elected at the same time. He died subsequently, and I am pleased to say that the Liberal party won the seat that the independent previously occupied. Will that group of two, or possibly three, be regarded as a political party? They stood with the same label and the same name on the ballot paper, and they used a familiar party political description — Labour. They were not entirely independents and therefore cannot fall simply into that category.
There are other independents elsewhere. How do we treat real independents, and how do we treat independents whose independence is tarnished by having a party political label attached to and qualifying it?
The second, and more substantive matter, is that there are in the 32 boroughs with which the schedule deals representatives elected under Conservative party, Labour party, Liberal party and Social Democratic party labels. Will those four parties, which are the four parties clearly and definitively represented across Greater London, be taken into account when the formula, for which this schedule is meant to be art explanation, is assessed? Is the balance of parties sitting in the local councils at the relevant time to be taken into account?
There was a debate which will be unhelpful to those hon. Members who are not as familiar with the position as London Members, as to the present composition of the 32 London boroughs. As the position changes regularly, and because I am not aware that there is any record of the present position immediately available to hon. Members, it may be helpful if I explain it. At the moment there are 16 Conservative-controlled boroughs in Greater London — half of the boroughs. That does not necessarily imply, and often does not mean, a majority of the votes. I shall return to that point later.
The Labour party controls 12 councils and the alliance controls one London borough — Richmond. Three London boroughs have mixed control. They are Hammersmith and Fulham, which has a Conservative-Liberal coalition of sorts, Waltham Forest, of which no party has overall control, and Brent, which has, of late, become an authority of which no party has overall control.
That is slightly different from the position in 1982, immediately following the elections, when the Conservatives controlled 16 boroughs, as they do now, the Labour party controlled 11 — it has since gained Lambeth—and there were five boroughs where no party had overall control, the fifth one being Richmond where the Conservative grouping and the alliance grouping each had 26 seats, there being no Labour members. Subsequently Richmond has passed into alliance hands as a result of the gain by the Liberal party of one seat from the Conservatives at the end of last year. Therefore, we are talking about 16 boroughs in Tory control, 12 in Labour control, one in alliance control and three with no single party in control.
11.15 am
Of the 16 boroughs that are Tory-controlled, in 11 the Conservatives had more than 50 per cent. of the vote and in five they had less than half of the popular vote—in Wandsworth it was 43 per cent., in Havering 44 per cent., in Ealing 41 per cent., in Harrow 45 per cent., and in Barnet 49 per cent. A fundamental question that the Committee has to address at an early stage in its deliberations is whether we treat parties which got over half of the vote, as well as over half of the seats, in the same way as parties which got under half the vote although under the electoral system they have over half the seats.
In regard to Labour-controlled boroughs, there are only four where the Labour party had a 50 per cent. or greater share of the vote at the last council elections—Islington with 51 per cent., Hackney with 55 per cent., Barking and Dagenham with 50 per cent. and Newham with 55 per cent. In the remaining seven authorities, as they were in 1982, or eight as they are in 1984 with the win by Labour in Lambeth, Labour had less than half the votes. Of those 12 authorities there is a group of eight and a group of four. Do we treat the group of four in which Labour had a majority of votes in the same way as the group of eight in which it did not have a majority of votes?
The next matter was touched on with disdain because the argument was so badly worked out and so many hon. Members objected to the ridiculous non-mathematics of the calculations that the Government proposed. At the moment Westminster city council, has 43 Conservative members and 16 Labour members. It is to send to the GLC four members. There are no Liberal members on

Westminster city council although this is something we are seeking to remedy at an early opportunity. It may be helpful to remind the Committee that the Liberal party in terms of votes or seats is clearly the fastest growing party in London and with its alliance partners is streets ahead of the growth of any other political force in the capital. It has no seats in Westminster, and the balance was 43 Tory, 16 Labour, Tories, 50 per cent. of the vote, Labour, 30 per cent. of the vote. The anomaly was that the alliance parties had 18 per cent. of the vote, but no seats. Are the seats to be divided two to the Tory party with 43 per cent. and 43 seats in Westminster, and two to the Labour party, or do the Conservatives get a third seat, because they will have the right to decide.
At this stage I must remind the Committee that these decisions will be made by the councils in question, and not by sub-committees or balanced party groups. Westminster city council will meet one fine day, if the Bill becomes law next year, and it can decide, if it wishes, to send all four of its nominees from among its own ranks, thus discounting the 50 per cent. of the electorate and the 16 councillors who do not come from within the ranks of the Tory party. However, at least there is a consolation for Westminster, because there are two parties on Westminster city council, four seats, and two into four goes.
Unfortunately, that does not apply elsewhere. Camden is easier than some. In Camden, the Conservative party has 26 seats, the Labour party has 33 seats, and the alliance parties as yet do not have a seat. They polled 25 per cent. of the vote, but, under the system that the two parties who are in power in Camden have the seats there — seats perpetuate—they make sure that their two minorities gobble up all the seats between them. However, there are only two parties. Will the ruling Labour group in Camden want to take all four seats, as it will have the power to do, three of the four seats, reflecting the fact that it is larger in number of members of the council and in terms of the popular vote, or will it be generous and share the seats two and two? At least, once more, two into four goes.
I deal next with Islington, the third of the four member delegations going to county hall from 1985–86. In Islington, it is interesting that the position is reversed. The Conservative party has no seats. The Labour party has 51 seats, and it polled 51 per cent of the votes. The Social Democratic party has one seat, the only opposition seat, although it polled 22 per cent. of the vote. The Conservative party would rightly feel aggrieved, because at present the Conservative party in Islington, which has no seats, had a greater share of the popular vote than the Social Democratic party, which obtained one seat. The system that is the basis of the delegation to come to county hall is already contrived in a way that is disadvantageous, in this case, not only to the alliance parties, but also to the Tory party.
I ask the Tory party whether it will be happy that the 51 per cent. of the people who voted Labour in Islington will gobble up the four seats, because it has 51 out of the 52 seats in the council, whether it should share the seats three to one, recognising that it is the larger of the two groups on the council, or whether it should be generous, and share them two and two recognising that—

Mr. Nellist: There is only one opposition councillor.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has spotted an important point. It is theoretically possible for Islington


council to divide its seats two and two, but, in spite of how the votes were cast in Islington, the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there is only one opposition councillor, so the solution has to be three and one or four and nothing.
It is no good saying that Westminster, Camden and Islington should treat their rights to nominate in the same way. They cannot, because, as the opposition parties in Islington, in terms of seats, they do not have a sufficient number of members in order to be able to send them, unless a seat were to remain vacant.

Sir George Young: It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would explain why he is using the figures in his amendment rather than the figures in the Bill. While he is saying that the numbers going to County hall pose problems for the nominating authorities, he is arguing against his numbers and not those in the Bill. Have I understood his argument correctly?

Mr. Hughes: The Minister makes a valid point. It is not mathematically difficult to understand from where the new numbers come. We are seeking, in an amended formula, to do what we believe would be less easily done under the Government's formula, for reasons to which I shall come.
Under the Government's proposals, the size of the GLC will be half its present size. There are 92 members now, whereas the total in the Bill is 46. Our amendment would double the Government's proposed numbers because that would permit greater flexibility, although it would be horribly ludicrous flexibility, as I am beginning to outline.

Sir George Young: It seems that the hon. Gentleman cannot add up the figures in the schedule. He will find that they come to 84, not 46.

Mr. Hughes: In the schedule there are 13 two-member councils, which totals 26; 15 three-member; and three four-member. The Minister is right to say that that produces a total—

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. Is it in order for the Committee to be delayed in this way while the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) rejigs his lecture? Might it be an idea for him to resume his seat now—he has delayed the Committee for a considerable time already—because he seems to be in some difficulty in making progress? Perhaps he will conclude his remarks and permit other contributions, which have been prepared properly, to be made.

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Paul Dean): I have been listening carefully to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and what he has said so far has been in order.

Mr. Hughes: Had many of the hon. Members who are now present been with us throughout the night, they would have a greater appreciation of the points with which we are dealing. In saying that, I am not criticising the two junior Ministers who have taken it in turns to answer the various debates. Indeed, they have done the job which, at least in part, I would have wished the Secretary of State to have done, because it is in the Bill. They have been sharing the burden of arguing a case that neither of them finds appealing, and they are doing it because they are answerable to their senior partner.
I accept what the Under-Secretary said about the original figures producing a total of 84, and I beg his

pardon. Our proposals would increase that number, and I shall explain why. Although our proposals are not perfect —I am showing how imperfect they are—they would be considerably less perfect if there was a smaller amount to divide among what is often a considerable number of parties or groups who need to be represented.
The fourth authority to which I wish to refer is Hackney. There are three Conservative councillors there with 50 Labour and seven Liberal councillors. There is an interesting anomaly in that case. The three Conservatives were elected with 23 per cent. of the vote, whereas the seven Liberals were elected with 27 per cent. Thus, the Tories have been done down in Hackney under their system. There are three parties, so that for the first time, an even number of seats is available to be allocated among an uneven number of political parties. Under the Government's proposals, two seats are available to the Hackney electorate for representatives in county hall.
I shall ask the question that I asked a couple of weeks ago: How does one divide the two seats so that the balance of the three parties represented on Hackney council is reflected at county hall? Will the Conservative party reflect the Socialist majority of Hackney council? Will the Liberal party reflect the Labour majority of Hackney council? Will the Labour party be generous and allow the Conservatives and Liberals, although minorities, to reflect its views at county hall? The Committee requires no further elaboration to know that it is impossible for the balance of the parties to be represented in the delegation going from Hackney council to county hall. Our proposal would double the number of representatives.
11.30 am
It is possible—hon. Members are aware that fractions or decimals must be considered—to send at least one person from each of the three parties if four members from Hackney are represented. It is possible to ensure that each of the parties in the four boroughs to which I referred are represented at county hall in the delegations if the number of councillors proposed by the Government were doubled.
The position in Tower Hamlets is interesting. Tower Hamlets is another London borough that has no Conservative councillor. The Conservative party received 7 per cent. of the vote, resulting in no councillors; the Labour party won 47 per cent. of the vote, a majority, resulting in 31 councillors and, therefore, a majority on the council; and the Liberal party won 41 per cent. of the votes and gained 18 councillors. Two parties are represented in Tower Hamlets—the majority, the Labour party, and the Opposition, the Liberal party. Two seats are available under the Government's proposals, so the burghers of Tower Hamlets must decide whether to be generous and give the Liberal party one of the two seats or whether to choose both representatives from the Labour ranks.
If there were four seats, as we propose, the balance of parties would be more accurately reflected. If the Labour party were being as fair as it could be—there are no requirements on it—it could send to county hall three Labour members and one Liberal member.
Greenwich is the first of the authorities for which the Government propose three nominees. That takes into account the fact that it is a large borough but, as I understand it, not the fact that the four parties are represented on the present borough council. In Greenwich the majority party is the Labour party, which has 43 seats with 40 per cent. of the vote; the Conservative party has


16 seats and 33 per cent. of the vote; the Liberal party has two councillors and the Social Democratic party has one councillor.
Four parties are represented in Greenwich, and the Government propose that there will be three appointed members. Magic of magic, four into three does not go. One might envisage a formula if Greenwich council had six seats with which to play. The council could contemplate giving three seats to the Labour party, two seats to the Conservative party and the remaining seat to the alliance. That would be roughly fair. That is the type of example with which the Under-Secretary of State may deal. The hon. Gentleman may accept that that approach is possible under our amendment but not under the Government's proposals.
I come next to the borough that lies between Greenwich and the next borough on the list, Southwark — the borough of Lewisham. The Labour party is the controlling authority, and has just changed its leader. It has 41 seats, and gained 40 per cent. of the vote. It is a minority party in votes terms, but a majority party in seats terms. The Conservative party provides the only opposition. It has 26 seats, and 35 per cent. of the vote. Because of its size, under the proposals Lewisham will be able to send three people to county hall.

Sir George Young: That is all right.

Mr. Hughes: As the Under-Secretary says, that is all right, but the worrying thing is that occasionally those figures might be made, with a bit of give and take and generosity by the ruling group of one authority, to accommodate both parties in a roughly proportionate and suitable balance.
I anticipate that the Under-Secretary will say what in essence one of his colleagues said when we debated the matter earlier. He said that it would be possible for the matter to be enforced in the courts. For example, if the minority Conservative group in Lewisham borough found that none of is members was sent from its town hall to the GLC, no doubt it could challenge that in the courts. Clause 2(5) states:
Each constituent council shall, so far as practicable, exercise its power to make or terminate appointments under this Parliament of this Act so as to ensure that the balance of parties for the time being prevailing"—
the Committee will accept that I am talking about the present balance of the parties, which is the only valid collection of figures that we have to go on—
in that council is reflected in the persons who are for the time being members of the Greater London Council".
The Government might argue that if Lewisham borough council did not "so far as practicable"—whatever that means—
exercise its power to make or terminate appointments under this Part of this Act so as to ensure that the balance of parties for the time being prevailing in that council is reflected in the persons who are for the time being members of the Greater London Council"—
that balance is 26 Conservatives and 41 Labour and there are three seats—the Conservatives, having an interest and a status before the courts, could challenge it.
I intend to consider one of the fundamental points about the schedule and the quagmire into which the Government are precipitating themselves, as well as those who are seeking to comply with the Bill. The problem will be what the courts say. If the Under-Secretary can illuminate the

Committee on that because he has received advice from legal officers in the Department of the Environment and possibly elsewhere, that would be helpful.
This problem will reappear when I refer to my borough of Southwark, which is particularly interesting because it does not have a straightforward division of parties. Not only there but elsewhere, one of the things that we must consider is whether the Government have announced for the third time that they are moving towards adopting proportional representation. We well remember the earlier two hesitant steps. The first was for the Northern Ireland Assembly seats in the European Parliament. That election was proportionally representative. The second step comes in the White Paper that gave rise to the Bill. This is particularly germane to the point. In the White Paper the Government propose that the Inner London education authority, in its indirectly elected form, which we understand is to be superceded in 1986 by a directly elected form, is to have a proportionally representative basis.
Here is the third example. Do the Government now accept that the GLC should represent proportionately those who have the right to send people to it? If the Government accept that for the year 1985–86 when there will be a particularly flawed method of nomination, why should not the same apply for direct elections? Why not use some other, direct basis for calculating the schedule? That alternative is open to the Government.
We all know the rules of the game. Amendments such as ours are tabled partly to probe the Government's attitude. The Under-Secretary may say that he has reflected after criticisms that the scheme would be unworkable. He may say that he would love to have a proportional system and that on Report or in another place an alternative will be proposed. That would be a proper concession, as opposed to the half-concessions and false dawns to which we have become accustomed. If that happened, the efforts by alliance Members to ensure that the Government are challenged on these issues will meet with some reward.
I represent one third of the London borough of Southwark. Southwark council comprises eight Conservatives, 53 Labour members, two Liberals and two independent members. There are three recognised parties and two independents.
As an aside, and using a different tone from that used in the rest of the debate, I should like to extend condolences to one of my colleagues who represents Southwark, the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) whose wife died only last week. He struggled to bear her illness, yet it came as a great shock to him when Mrs. Bowden died. I pay tribute to him. I am sure that hon. Members will support my remarks. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Southwark's positon is interesting, because it sends representatives from the three main political groups to the House of Commons. The Labour party is in control there — a minority party in terms of votes, but a majority party in terms of seats. The borough will have a fundamental problem. The present proposal is for three nominees from Southwark. Our proposal extends that to six. With only three nominees, it will not be possible to accommodate Conservative, Labour and Liberal members as well as one or both of the independents. With six nominees, the three main parties and the independents could be accommodated.
Lambeth might not want to do that. One hopes for better things, but if it did not fulfil the requirement to send a delegaion reflecting the balance of the parties, it could be challenged and the courts would adjudicate, but without precedents. The political position in Lambeth is interesting. The Labour party has just regained control. It has 32 members with one third of the popular vote. The Conservative party has 27 members with 39 per cent. of the popular vote. In terms of seats and votes cast, the council is totally out of proportion.
The largest party in persons represented and elected is the second largest party by 6 per cent. in votes cast in the 1982 Lambeth borough council election. The alliance parties, which at that time had five and now have three seats in Lambeth, had 27 per cent. of the vote. So there is the amazing position of a Labour group in control having won 33 per cent. of the vote, a Conservative group in opposition with 6 per cent. more and an alliance group with three seats with only 6 per cent. less than the ruling Labour group — third in that borough, but with the ruling group in second place.
11.45 am
How on earth will the council in Lambeth seek to represent those views with the three seats at its disposal at county hall? At least our proposal gives more flexibility. I shall come to the arguments about that in a moment, and I shall pray in aid what the Government said in the consultative paper that they issued subsequent to "Streamlining the Cities".
Wandsworth is well known as a Conservative-controlled borough. That does not mean that the Liberal and Social Democratic parties believe that it is a well-controlled borough. It has 33 Conservative councillors, and former members of the council are now Members of this House. Those 33 councillors have 43 per cent. of the vote. The 27 Labour councillors have 38 per cent. of the vote, but 19 per cent. of the vote for the alliance parties produced the usual, unfair, unbiased and incorrect one councillor.
Wandsworth has three seats at its disposal. It can be generous, and might be obliged to be so. We might have Labour, Conservative and Liberal members from Wandsworth. What we do not know is whether the Labour and Conservative parties will take the same view, or whether the alliance group controlling Richmond borough will take the same view, on how to define what is reasonably practical.
I am trying not be distracted by the manoeuvrings behind me, which appear to be the subject of great interest—

Mr. Waldegrave: Do not sit down.

Mr. Hughes: I do not often take advice from the Minister, but his advice is clearly right this time.

Dr. David Clark: rose—

Mr. Hughes: No, I will not sit down.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Give way.

Mr. Hughes: No. I appreciate that there will come a time when Conservative Members would usually want the opportunity to have lunch. If this matter continues, they might have to forgo that opportunity. I wish to press on, so that those with interest in the boroughs that we have not yet discussed will know the position.
Hammersmith and Fulham council comes in the category that hon. Members will remember, where no one party has a majority seat. Here, we enter into dangerous and difficult territory. Hammersmith and Fulham has but two seats with which to play. Two parties are in control of the council—the Conservative party with 23 seats and the Liberal party with two seats. The Labour party has 25 seats. The reason why the Conservatives and Liberals have control is because of such matters as the mayoral casting vote.
There is an important question to be answered. If the Minister can answer it, the estimation of him in the House — which is generally and traditionally good, although declining as he joins in the unhappy coalition seeking to propel this unconstitutional legislation through the House —will be much improved and hon. Members will be much the wiser. How can Hammersmith and Fulham council, as far as is reasonably practicable. allocate two seats among three parties when the coalition is the largest group and the opposition party is the second largest group? I should be intrigued to know the answer.
Yet again, there is another borough where the party with the second largest number of seats — the Conservative party with 23 seats—has more votes than the party with the largest number of seats—2 per cent. more than the Labour party, although the Labour party has two more seats.
Kensington and Chelsea is another easy borough. It has but two seats, and those well versed in Tory dominance and its historical reasons will know that 39 seats on Kensington and Chelsea borough council are held by the Conservative party and 15 are held by the Labour party. With those 39 seats, the borough has taken a long time to demolish town halls and carry out other municipalisation initiatives which have ingratiated them with the planning and development world. But the Conservative party has a majority and the Labour party is a minority, and the system means that the alliance is not represented in that royal borough. Of course, the alliance did not get fewer votes than did the Labour party, which had 22 per cent. of the vote—the alliance polled the same number of votes. The Government are trying to fit into this little box of a schedule and produce, as though by magic, the right, practicably balanced group of people. Such is the wonder of our electoral system that only two parties are represented, although one of them polled the same number of votes as did the party with no seats.
Waltham Forest goes back into the big league, with three seats. Under our proposal there will be more flexibility because—the Committee will be aware of the arguments—we would offer it six seats. Waltham Forest council has no overall control. The 25 Conservative councillors got the largest share of the vote, with 41 per cent. The 25 Labour councillors got 31 per cent. of the vote, and the seven Liberal councillors got 27 per cent. of the vote. What will they do? Will Waltham Forest council, with no overall control, do what one would expect it to do when no party has overall control, and stand up for its rights? I suggest that it does, because then each party will get a seat out of it.
Honour will be satisfied and all three parties will be represented at county hall. Of course, none of them sought election to county hall; none of them stood on a platform saying, "We are going off to county hall." None of them may have much time for county hall, none may be standing again in the 1986 election in Waltham Forest, and none


may be interested in the things that county hall does. But if they are—I give them the benefit of the doubt—at least in lucky Waltham Forest all three parties can be represented in the sedate chairs of the GLC chamber.
Redbridge borough was an artificial creation that came about during one of the Conservative Government's previous schemes for reorganising local government. It did not exist previously, and its name is of such intrigue and interest that it must have been created by bureaucrats. It is a rare beast — a London borough in which the Conservative party has an overall majority of seats and an overall majority of votes. The Labour party is in the minority on both counts. But there is a third seat to dish out, and I imagine that the Conservative party, because it has an overwhelming majority over the Labour party, will give that seat to itself. Perhaps it cannot be criticised for doing so.
In Havering, the balance is not so easy. Havering hovers round the eastern flank of our great metropolis. The Tories have control there, even though drugs are an increasing problem and the signs of social malaise are, sadly, creeping apace. The majority of seats are held by the Tory party. A minority of votes gave the Tories that majority of seats. The Labour party has only 12 seats—

Mr. Soames: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I will give way in a moment. The third group—the alliance parties—has five seats.

Mr. Soames: I welcome the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey to his present position. Many of my hon. Friends are pleased to see him there. Do the points that the hon. Gentleman is making compare favourably with, for example, Havering?

Mr. Hughes: That intervention raises an interesting point in relation to the London borough of Haringey.

Mr. Soames: I knew it began with an "h".

Mr. Hughes: The London borough of Haringey—the hon. Gentleman will need to know this in order to participate in the debate—is spelt with one "r", but the place is spelt with two "r's". If one ever wants to know whether one is in the stadium or the council chamber, one simply refers to the number of "r's".

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. I think that the hon. Member is misleading the Committee. There is a district of the borough of Haringey known as Haringay, but there is an even older part of the borough known as Haringey, just like the borough.

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is a point of information, not a point of order.

Mr. Hughes: I bow to the superior knowledge of the hon. Gentleman, who once represented a part of that borough.
I shall discuss Haringey later. It is further down the list. The borough of Barking and Dagenham groups two names under one borough label. The Labour party has control there and can rejoice in the fact that it achieved 50 per cent. of the popular vote. There are 37 seats for Labour and, by an amazing and bizarre coincidence, the Conservative party, with 23 per cent. of the vote, got three seats, and the alliance parties, with 15 per cent., got the same number.
Barking and Dagenham has a severe problem. It has three parties but two seats. It must be accommodated to the schedule of the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State at the Department of the Environment. Only if our amendment is passed can the problem be solved. I am very willing to hear from the Government that a similar amendment will be tabled by them later today or as part of tomorrow's business — we are still dealing with yesterday's business at the moment—on Report. There must be an amendment if there is to be anything to report. If the Government brought in an amendment, they could accommodate the problem of Barking and Dagenham.
In Newham there are three seats available. There are, of course, no Conservative councillors in Newham. Sadly, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is not here, just when I have reached a point of particular interest to him. He will be sad not to have been able to speak on this subject—whether about the spelling or some other point. The Labour party has 54 seats and 55 per cent. of the vote. The alliance parties have six seats between them and 29 per cent. of the vote. There are two parties, but three seats. I expect that the Labour party will be entitled to send two people to county hall and that a representative of one of the two alliance parties will also be sent to county hall. I wait to hear from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary how he will accommodate the interests of both the alliance parties on this issue, if they differ.

Mr. Soames: Is it now the view of the Opposition that proportional representation should be applied to these matters?

Mr. Hughes: I am approaching the subject in this methodical way because there are no statistics, even in the Library. It gave me as much as it could. If the Government proceed with indirectly elected bodies next year, the best available system will reflect representation in borough councils. That would solve the immediate problem and much of the rest of the Bill. We have argued that if, instead of pursuing this contorted, unconstitutional and illiberal way round the course the Government adopted proportional representation and rate capping which was in their manifesto but a short time ago, they would not need this contrived and fundamentally flawed Bill. I welcome the hon. Member for Newham, North-West back to the debate. I trust that he has benefited from his short rest.
12 noon
We come next to Bexley. Hon. Members might know that it is the last on the list before the megaboroughs in terms of representation. Right hon. and hon. Members who represent the megaboroughs might realise that the Government accord only three boroughs the accolade of four people going to county hall. They are Bromley which, coincidentally, is Conservative controlled, Croydon which, surprisingly, is Conservative controlled and Barnet which, hon. Members will have guessed, is also Conservative controlled. However, we are still dealing with the last of the less well represented poor relation boroughs that can send only three people to county hall. In 1982, half of Bexley's electorate voted Conservative. The Tories won 41 seats. The Labour party got 24 per cent. of the votes and 14 seats and the Liberal party —representing the alliance—got seven seats although it got 2 per cent. more votes than the Labour party. Bexley does not have the same problem as other boroughs as it can


send a Labour representative, a Conservative and a Liberal to replace those who are elected directly in Bexley to county hall. So much for the long line of smaller fish.
Bromley is well known for its interest in local government affairs. No doubt people there are falling over themselves to get in the county hall that they were suing only a short while ago. It is proudly able to send four people to the building across the river. The Conservatives might be entitled to swallow the majority of those places because they won 52 seats there with 57 per cent. of the vote. The Labour party got only five seats with 14 per cent. of the votes. The alliance, even with 28 per cent. of the vote—double that of the Labour party—got fewer seats. Such are the vagaries of the electoral system. That was a public relations point, but it is one of the objections that we hope can be partly resolved by the amendment.
Circumstances are equally bizarre in Croydon. It is also a big borough that will be able to send four people to county hall. The Conservatives have the majority there and the Labour party forms the opposition, but not because it came second in terms of votes. With 22 per cent. of the votes, the alliance got no seats.
What does the Croydon Conservative group do? Does it send — as it must, because it has no option —representatives of the Conservative and Labour parties, or does if try to make up for the alliance's disproportionate number of seats compared with votes, and give two seats to its opponents? If not, the Labour party will have only one seat, and the Conservatives will take the remaining three seats.
In Sutton—this was referred to in the middle of the night—the situation is rather anomalous. Incidentally, I welcome the Secretary of State to the Chamber, and look forward to him intervening on these issues. We have not had the pleasure of hearing from him since 5.15 yesterday afternoon. In Sutton, two seats are available. There are 46 Conservative seats with 51 per cent. of the vote, seven Labour seats with 14 per cent. of the vote and, rather anomalously, three Liberal seats with 35 per cent. of the vote. Again, in voting terms, the second and third parties are in the wrong place. However, the Conservatives could give away one of those seats and thus reflect the voting strength of one of them. I hope that the Minister will accept that all three parties representing the good people of Sutton could be accommodated, if four seats were allocated among them. The Conservatives could no doubt retain the fourth seat for themselves.
Merton is a Conservative borough and one of the minority with 51 per cent., or over half of the popular vote. The Conservative party has 44 seats. Merton is easier than some, because, despite the lack of proportion between seats and votes, Merton only has two parties currently represented — the second of which is the Labour party. Should Merton send one from each party or, as the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) so felicitously put it, might it send one member from each of the two parties represented down in Merton?
Kingston upon Thames is a larger borough, but it has only two seats to dispose of. The Conservative party won the majority of seats and votes. The alliance parties came second in terms of seats and votes and the Labour party came third. The alliance has seven seats, the Labour party three seats, and the Conservative majority, 40 seats. But Kingston has only two seats to get rid of. Will the Labour party be excluded from representation?
Richmond has two seats. That is probably easy, because the Conservatives have the same number of seats, bar two, as the alliance parties now in control. There are 25 Conservatives, and 27 alliance councillors. Should the alliance parties be fair and give one of the seats to each of the component parties? After all they have always been separate parties. Alternatively, should they be unfair to themselves and fair to the Conservative party that they have just defeated, and allocate it one of their two seats?
When the rate-capping provisions were before the House a short while ago, Ministers came up with proposals that exempted many of their Back Benchers. They told them that authorities that had been good boys in the past would be exempted, and would not be the subject of the Government's rate-capping provisions. Conservative Members' votes were determined by what was said by the Secretary of State in response to their questions. Similarly, if the Under-Secretary of State can deal in turn with each of the boroughs, he can then deal with the questions that we need answered so that hon. Members know how to exercise their votes. An hon. Member may not be of the same party as the majority group on his council. His view of these proposals may well be affected by whether he thinks that his party will be represented on the GLC in its interim form.
Hounslow is a Labour borough and has two seats; 27 of its members are Conservatives and 33 are Labour. Neither party has a majority of votes, but as there are only two parties it is possible that that borough could be represented properly within the vague and approximate definitition that we have been given.
Hillingdon has three seats, which is convenient because that Conservative-controlled authority at present consists of the following political participants—57 Conservative Members, with a majority of votes last time round, so one cannot begrudge them their majority, 10 Labour members with 23 per cent. of the vote last time and only two alliance members, although they gained the second largest share of the vote. Nevertheless, as there are only three seats and three parties, we may be able to obtain in relation to that borough an answer to the question of principle. If the number of seats and parties is the same, will there be one each?
Our proposal would allow greater flexibility, but in any event we should like to know whether that is preferable to what the Government have proposed. Because Hillingdon is such an appropriate example, it may be helpful to ask whether the Under-Secretary of State accepts this premise, which is one of those on which our amendment is based. Cannot a more accurate reflection of the parties represented at local government level, whatever their make-up, their numbers or their differences, be obtained if the seats are shared among a larger number of people? If Hillingdon had six rather than three seats it would be possible to be more precise. Is not that a laudable, desirable and attainable objective which would be acceptable to the House and to the Government because the borough could then be more fairly represented on the GLC?
The second important point of substance is this. The interim councils will be in office for a year — 11 months, we are told. We do not like the fact that they are to be nominated. We opposed that throughout the night. When all the other Opposition parties deserted us, we have opposed the Bill and we shall continue to do so because it is fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional. Whatever


the official Opposition — the Labour party appears effectively to have abandoned that role — have now done, they have abandoned their duty to oppose the legislation and to do what the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said would be done with venom and vigour if his party were in Opposition—to oppose the Bill up hill and down dale, through night and day, morning and evening, until there was no opposition left. There was indeed no Opposition left, but that was because they had departed, not because they had exhausted the opportunities to oppose the Bill.

Mr. Ashdown: My hon. Friend has said that the official Opposition—the Labour party—abandoned the Bill throughout the night. That is certainly true, but I hope that he will pay a special tribute to the wonderful hirsute quartet from the Left who stayed with us throughout the night and argued man for man with us and in whose speeches the anger of the Labour Front Bench shone through. I hope that he will pay that tribute to the splendid hairy four.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Some Labour Members determinedly tried to keep their flag flying through the night. Sadly, their leaders did not follow but deserted them in action. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is your leader?"] I can answer that question. If hon. Members will stay a little longer than they have done previously they will be able to see and understand the presence and views of the leader. I do not wish to prevent discussion on the final amendment, which deals with the metropolitan counties or make sure that only London is considered. However, the next borough I shall deal with is Ealing. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who is one of the protagonists of the Bill, knows that borough well.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I shall give way in a moment.
Ealing council consists of 37 Conservative councillors, who have 41 per cent. of the vote, 30 Labour councillors, who have 35 per cent. of the vote, and three alliance councillors, who have 21 per cent. of the vote. It has three seats available and three parties which could lay claim to them. It does not reflect the balance which the Minister would wish, as the combined Opposition parties are greater than the Tory party.
I shall proceed quickly with the last five boroughs. In Brent no party has overall control. There are 31 Conservative councillors, 32 Labour councillors and three alliance councillors. They have three seats at their disposal and they could allocate one to each party.
Harrow is under Conservative control. There are 41 Conservative councillors, 13 Liberal members and six Labour members. It has only two seats. Will the Labour party lose out yet again?
Barnet, to which I have already referred, is a big borough. It has four seats at county hall. It consists of 48 Tory councillors and 12 Labour councillors. How will they be divided? Four fifths are Conservative councillors, one fifth are Labour councillors and four cannot be divided by five.

Mr. Tony Banks: Yes it can.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is accurate, but it is of no help if half a member or two eighths of a member sits in county hall. If he or she did, he or she might not represent his or her constituents particularly well.
Haringey is the last Labour-controlled borough which we shall consider this morning or, at any rate, at this stage in our proceedings. It has two seats.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman spoke of sitting all night. Is he aware that Labour Members spent the last 20 hours in Committee arguing for industrial democracy? During that 20 hours not one word was spoken by an alliance Member from the two seats allocated to alliance Members on the highly important matter we debated. That was because the Liberal party has concentrated on a public relations stunt on the Floor of the House. Will he address his remarks to the procedings everywhere in the House? Labour Members have not slept all night and have been on their feet all night.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The whereabouts of hon. Members may be interesting, but they are not relevant.

Mr. Hughes: Hon. Members must judge whether this Bill is of constitutional and democratic importance. The leader of the Greater London council seems to think that it is, and the Labour members of the GLC and many of their colleagues from other parties seem to think that it is. Most national and local newspapers, commentators, academics, intellectuals, thinkers and voters seem to think so too. If we cannot serve them by arguing for a decent system of representation, we are certainly not doing the job which we were sent here to do.
I wind up with the boroughs of Haringey and Enfield.

Mr. Tony Favell: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has paid tribute to the four members of the Labour party whom he described as the hirsute brigade. Does that herald an alliance of the Social Democratic party, the Liberal party and the Militant Tendency?

Mr. Hughes: The only relevance of the hon. Gentleman's question is that one of the odd things about the Bill is that it has produced an alliance of the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friends who are former Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers, the hon. Gentleman's right hon. and hon. Friends elsewhere on the Back Benches and the parties on this side of the House in saying that the Government are wrong and we are right. That is the alliance with which we are concerned.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is not the alliance mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) highly appropriate since the young Liberals are to the left of the Militant Tendency?

Mr. Hughes: Had the Government chosen to describe the people who should be sent to county hall next year in terms of left and right, perhaps we could address ourselves to that issue. It is possible that an amendment will be tabled by the hon. Gentleman to suggest that. While we are addressing the issue of political parties it is proper to conclude by addressing the practical problem that will face the Government in trying to implement the schedule.
Haringey has a Labour council. There are 26 Tory members and 33 Labour members with a possibility of two seats. There is no particular problem there.
The last borough on the list is Enfield, which has three seats. It is the borough of the motor cycle and the way north. There are 47 Conservatives and 19 Socialists, but there is a third seat. At the end of the day, who will it go to? Far more fundamentally, will it make a difference?
We seek to amend the schedule to provide a better approximation than the Government have come up with, although by the most inadequate method of calculation which the Government insisted upon. It would at least provide a council with more members who could share the tasks and responsibilities among them and thus do their job more effectively. It would at least provide a council where it would be more possible that, if we were to have this aberration of a non-elected assembly for one year, there would be a divergence of views.
There would be enormous practical advantages, but I must warn the Committee that the amendment does not prevent the fact that under the Government's schedule, and under any other alternative which it would have been in order to table at this stage of our deliberations, we shall not be able to prevent the Government from converting an elected authority of one political colour into a non-elected nominated body with a different political allegiance.
As the Secretary of State said when he introduced the Bill on Second Reading, it is one of those unfortunate coincidences that in this wonderful panopoly of Government reform there should just happen to be a change, without a vote being cast, of the political representation of the 7 million people of Greater London. On behalf of those people and people who believe in elections, not dictation by Government, I ask the Minister to tell us whether he has thought of a semblance of a reason for resisting the amendment.

Sir George Young: The monologue of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was enlivened by some contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). My hon. Friend revealed his detailed knowledge of the geography of the metropolis and pronounced some of our villages in a dialect unfamiliar to many Londoners. He sounded to me very much like the sort of chap who failed his colour test at school.
It is difficult to understand why the alliance is being so unkind to the Government on this issue. It would have been easier for us to have said that the largest party takes all the seats. We did not do that. Indeed, we made it clear in the White Paper that the nominations would be required to reflect, as closely as practicable, the party balance on each nominating authority. We carried that through into the Bill and clause 2(5) provides that
the balance of parties for the time being prevailing in that council is reflected in the persons who are for the time being members of the Greater London Council".
The parties that would benefit from that provision are those which find it difficult to come first in an election. I should have thought that the alliance was easily the most advantaged of the three main parties by the Government's decision to allow minority representation on those transitional bodies. Far from decrying that part of the Bill, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey did for a long time, he should have welcomed it.

Mr. Ashdown: The Minister is seeking to make a party political point, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) —[Interruption.] — took great care not to do that. He

mentioned at some length the way in which Conservative councillors would be disadvantaged by the proposals. Will the Minister answer that point?

Sir George Young: About four or five years ago, there was something called the Lib-Lab pact. There was a spirit of bonhomie and co-operation between the two parties. That spirit seems to have evaporated from the speech to which we have been listening for the past one and a half hours.
A great deal of what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said was a red herring, as he produced the proportion of votes cast for councillors and adduced those figures to support his argument. If he looks at the new clause and the Bill, he will see that no reference is made to the votes cast for the councillors. It is clear that the balance of parties for the time being prevailing in the council is what matters. While that was an interesting debating point, it did not reinforce the hon. Gentleman's case for the new clause.
My confidence in the hon. Gentleman's argument was not reinforced by what he said at the beginning, when he added the figures in schedule 1, which clearly come to 84, and announced to the House that they totalled 42. He began also by arguing—

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend take the trouble to explain at greater length how the system we are proposing would help the alliance on the proposed bodies?

Sir George Young: I hate to have to say this, but, for reasons that I hope my hon. Friend will understand, I did not catch the first part of his intervention.

Mr. Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend explain how the system that we are proposing will help the alliance on the proposed bodies?

Sir George Young: There are some London boroughs, to which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred, where the alliance has one quarter of the seats. If such a borough is entitled to four representatives on the transitional council, it would appear that the alliance would thus be entitled to one member. If we had adopted the "winner take all" system, the Conservative party or the Labour party on that authority would have taken all four. That is not a point that the hon. Gentleman should dispute.
The other point, with which I would not disagree, is that the greater the number of members of the transitional council, the greater the number of parties that can secure representation. One can get slightly closer to equity. The hon. Gentleman did not say that, by doing that, one doubles the size of the transitional council. The debate to which the Committee must address itself is the balance between equity — which was the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's speech—and efficiency, because there are clear consequences if one ends up with a large body.
It is worth reminding ourselves of what the Herbert committee said about the size of the GLC. The committee suggested that it should be about 100. The formula produced by the new clause gives a figure of 168, which would make the council—which, of course, would exist for only 11 months—an unwieldy body. I suspect that the members would spend most of that time learning each other's names. There is no need for a GLC of that size. We propose to reduce it from 92 to 84, which we believe is a manageable size and right in terms of efficiency.

Mr. Alton: Does the Minister think that it might have been easier for the Government not to set up transitional arrangements, but instead to expand the borough councils and district councils in the areas of the metropolitan councils by perhaps one third and to allow elections to take place next May to the expanded borough and district councils? Would that not have solved many of the Government's problems in appearing to abolish elections and to set up unwieldy and unrepresentative bodies?

Sir George Young: That would have meant not only a new clause but a new Bill. It is an interesting point, but it in no way arises from the debate on the amendment.

Mr. Tracey: Will my hon. Friend deal with the practicalities of a vastly enlarged body of 168? If we were to try to accommodate such a large number of members in County hall, there would be problems in finding seats for them. Equally, a horrific sum of money would have to be paid for attendance allowances and various supporting services. As the Conservative party always keeps its eye on public expenditure, this would be a serious mistake.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. As a former member of the GLC, I am aware of the number of seats in the chamber. It would not be possible to accommodate a council of that size. My hon. Friend is right to point out that there would be consequences in administration costs for the GLC. The whole thrust of Government policy is to streamline the cities and to reduce overheads for ratepayers in London and the metropolitan county councils. An enlarged council would be a move in the wrong direction.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey invited me to go through the long list of boroughs and indicate exactly how I would apportion the proposed representation. The Committee will be pleased to hear that I have no intention of doing that. The Bill makes it clear that that is not the responsibility of the Secretary of State or Ministers in the Department of the Environment. The responsibility rests squarely on the council. We had quite a long debate on this on 10 May. At that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) said:
We believe that in the majority of cases the arrangements will be perfectly straightforward and there will be a pretty obvious way of making proportional membership fit in with the shape of a lower-tier council. In some cases, there will be two or three different ways of proceeding, and one method may be as good as another.
All that we have laid on the lower tier authorities is the duty to behave reasonably. If they do not, they may be taken to court. In such cases the court would have to decide not who the members should be, but whether the council had behaved in a reasonable manner or whether it had produced an absurd outcome."—[Official Report, 10 May 1984; Vol 59, c. 1113.]
That puts it in a slightly different perspective from what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said when he tried to give the impression that it was impossible to come up with a satisfactory solution. The council has to do its best, and it has to satisfy the court, if it goes to the court, that it has behaved in a reasonable manner. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West also suggested that we would consider the possibility of producing some sort of guidance on how we might envisage the arrangements working.
The balance is between equity, on the one hand, and a desire to get fair representation of minority parties and

efficiency, on the other. Given the fact that these arrangements will last for only 11 months and that a GLC of about the same size as the present membership of 92 is about right—

Mr. Soames: In view of the very important nature of the argument that my hon. Friend is advancing, particularly concerning equity versus efficiency, and as an interregnum of some 11 months is involved, will he go into more detail as to how the equation is arrived at and how the comparison is made between equity and efficiency?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. In the interests of efficiency, one needs a sufficient number of members on the transitional council to cover the various committees and to ensure that the responsibilities of the council are discharged. That is a clear argument against having a transitional council that is too small, as it could not cope if it went below a certain size. The argument the other way is that, if there are too many members, the administrative costs go up, as my hon. Friend implied, and we start to lose the thrust of the argument that we are trying to keep the costs down. We have the benefit of 20 years' experience of the GLC operating county hall, so we know approximately how many members are needed to discharge its functions. The functions will be approximately the same for the transitional year, so it is a fair comparison.
We have chosen 84 rather than 92 because that ties in with the number of parliamentary constituencies in London, which have recently been revised, and they are as objective a measure as we can get to achieve equal representation throughout London on the transitional body. The size of the GLC would come down from 92 to about 84. Having discussed this matter with councillors at county hall, who are in a good position to give us their views, we believe that 84 is about the right size.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: In this long debate, all the emphasis seems to have been on the GLC. I wish to put a question on behalf of those who live in the west midlands.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman anticipates another amendment. The amendment under discussion deals with Greater London only.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend may have an opportunity, when the Committee addresses itself to parts II to VII of the schedule, to make detailed points on the west midlands, which is of vital concern to him.
Listening to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey go through the list of boroughs, I was struck by the number where it seemed there was a fairly reasonable solution in terms of nominating people to the transitional council. The number of hard cases was certainly in single figures. The boroughs must do their best. We accept that there will not be a perfect solution, and there may appear to be some inequity. We dealt earlier with that part of the Bill which gave the Secretary of State power by order to suspend the elections. The alternative would simply have been to abandon the attempt to have any minority representation at all, and to take the easy way out. For reasons that we explained when we dealt with clause 2, on which I have touched again, we felt that that would be wrong. These are elected bodies at present with minority representation on them. If we had moved over to nomination by the majority party, there could have been


councils in Yorkshire with no minority representation on them. That would have meant a change in the composition of those councils. For those reasons, we decided that the balance in the Bill was right.
I have tried to deal as best I can with the points raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey in his substantial speech. It is right that the Committee should acknowledge the amount of work that went into it, possibly by the Library giving him the relevant information.
We have to decide the balance of equity against efficiency. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the Committee will agree that the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey should be rejected, and that we should leave the schedule as set out in the Bill.

Mr. Corbyn: The last two speeches differed in length, in preparation and in degree of boredom. They had one fundamental and simple theme, the alliance between the alliance Benches and the Conservative Benches in a conspiracy to deny the people of London the right to vote. It is a conspiracy between parties determined to destroy the right of the people of London to elect their councils. [Interruption.] That is what we have witnessed today. That is what we have seen going on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] I come from Islington borough, and we need no lectures from Members on the alliance Benches about democracy. We all remember the way that SDP Members seized control of Islington council and stole the council from the electorate. In 1978, my borough council was a Labour council. Some of those people defected, called themselves the SDP, took control of the council, refused to resign and refused to face the people until they had to—and what happened when they did face the people in the 1982 elections? All bar one of them was chucked out. In all, 27 were thrown out by the electorate, and that one remaining miserable cur— [Interruption.]—got in with a majority of one after seven recounts.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. I am having the greatest difficulty relating what the hon. Gentleman is saying to the subject of the amendment. Can you guide us as to how we may return to the subject under debate?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is coming to the end of his preamble and is about to deal with the detail of the amendment.

Mr. Corbyn: I was making some mild observations before starting my contribution. I shall have some stronger comments to make later.

Mr. Ashdown: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. I thought that I heard the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) use what I regard — I hope that the Committee also regards—as unparliamentary language. May I seek your advice because I think I heard the hon. Gentleman use a thoroughly unparliamentary expression?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I did not hear, because of a certain amount of background noise, any unparliamentary language. However, if any was used, I am sure that the hon. Member will wish to withdraw it.

Mr. Corbyn: The word I used to describe a councillor in Islington was taken from Shakespeare and is not, so far as I am aware, unparliamentary. I would not wish to use such language.
The Committee must appreciate that the fundamental purpose of the Bill is to deny the people of London and the metropolitan counties their right to elect their councils next year. No amount of playing with figures concerning the appointment of people from borough councils to another body — perhaps one to be called the Greater London council—can hide the fact that the alliance and Conservative Benches are agreed on wishing to deny the people of London the right to vote.
What they are talking about in the friendly repartee That is going on between those Benches is a squalid little manoeuvre regarding the numbers of people whom they can get to represent each borough. Are Liberal Members so desperate that they are willing to ignore the wishes of millions of Londoners? I understand that a petition will be presented shortly which will give the exact number of Londoners who are opposed to this change.

Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Corbyn: I will give way on a point of order only. [Interruption.]
What we are discussing is the principle of elections and democracy. I need not take up 80 minutes of the time of the Committee to describe democracy. Nor do I need the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to lecture me on the meaning of that word. He failed to explain whether the Liberal party supports the Bill, opposes it, wants elections, wants appointments or is after proportional representation. He could only talk about the shabby little game of numbers representing each borough when the real issue centres around the fact that the ballot box has been stolen by the Conservatives with the connivance of the alliance.
Nearly 14 million people in Britain are about to lose their right to vote at elections. This bunch on the alliance Benches who masquerade as part of the Opposition are simply conniving in the destruction of democracy — [interruption]—by trying to grab a few public places for themselves. They have spent much time on this well-orchestrated publicity stunt, while upstairs in Committee on the Finance Bill their representative could not even bother to attend. That shows—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the number of councillors to be appointed.

Mr. Corbyn: I shall do that, Mr. Dean, but I thought that I would first explain how their interest lies in a little chicanery and a bit of repartee with the Tory party, which illustrates that they are more concerned with those shoddy manoeuvres than they are with fighting the battle against the economic policies of the Conservatives which are creating misery and unemployment throughout the country.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and will be even more grateful for a few moments silence from the Liberal Benches. Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, if the amendment were carried, there would be 168 members on the interim Greater London council, giving the Liberal party and the SDP a larger number of seats? It would do nothing for the


fundamental, undemocratic nature of an appointed board, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would accept that point. My arithmetic reveals that even if we increased the numbers on the council, that body would end up with a Conservative majority. The political nature of the GLC would change from Labour to Tory, and a gerrymander would remain. Under the Liberal proposal, there will be a majority ranging from eight to 10 Conservatives, and, according to the Government's proposal, the majority will range between 12 and 18 Conservatives. Does my hon. Friend accept that, whatever happens, the undemocratic nature of the proposals is not altered and the political control of the GLC is still changed, which is what the Government have been trying to do all along?

Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am sure that every democrat in the land will be pleased with my hon. Friend's efforts against this shabby and squalid Bill. He has pointed out the absolute truth—the Bill's purpose is to transfer power from the elected Labour authorities and Labour councils to a quango comprising people elected to borough councils with nothing to do with the GLC or, in the case of the metropolitan counties, the councils to which they were first elected. This is a means of specifically and deliberately preventing a large number of individuals who presently hold office at county hall from continuing to hold that office.
The proposals put forward by the alliance with the Conservative Benches — [Interruption.] —are the same thing with a little bit of icing from the cake for them. They are talking about the transfer of authority from Labour to Tory by a vote in Committee. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey managed to tell us during more than an hour of curious arithmetic and an even stranger knowledge of London's geography only that he wished to change the numbers representing each borough, but not the principle behind that.
I listened carefully to a great many things said by the hon. Gentleman during the past 18 hours. I did not notice much emphasis in his contributions on this fundamental and important issue. It appears that the Liberal and SDP Members are using this opportunity to grab public positions for themselves and some cheap publicity from their antics throughout the night. Outside, however, I did not see that kind of enthusiasm when campaigns were waged against the abolition of the GLC and the elections. Alliance Members have much less to say when television cameras and radio reporters are not available.
This is a matter of great importance, and it is good that it is being debated on the Floor of the House so that a few more hon. Members have a chance to discuss what is happening. The amendment is directed towards greater fairness in the distribution of places on the new interim GLC. The effect of the amendment is to increase from two to four the number of representatives from my borough. At present we have three elected representatives. In all the discussions that I have had with people in my constituency in this long-running campaign against the legislation, no one has said that the one thing that concerns him is the number of representatives from Islington. What my constituents want is the right to elect those representatives. That is the fundamental point that has been put to me.
This critical issue deserves a long debate. It also deserves a great deal more explanation from the Government of their intentions. They have produced the number of people that they would put on an interim authority, but the real issue is what the purpose of the authority is, what powers those people would have, and why it is so necessary to rush the Bill through Parliament when the abolition legislation has not yet been brought forward for full debate. It is not just putting the cart before the horse; perhaps it is killing the horse without even seeing the cart.
We must not look at the numbers in each borough, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey attempted to do. We do not need to go on a tour of London. We need the strongest possible opposition from everybody who is worried and concerned about democracy and representation. People should say so rather than put an enormous effort into merely considering the figures.

Mr. James Couchman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the derisory turnout at the GLC elections in past years shows no great desire on the part of the electorate to vote for the GLC?

Mr. Corbyn: The turnout at the last GLC election in 1981 was higher than the turnout in 1977, and higher than that in previous elections.

Mr. Tony Banks: Perhaps I can assist my hon. Friend. The turnout in 1981 was 51 per cent., considerably higher than the turnout at the United States presidential elections.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has been tempted from the straight and narrow. Let us come back to the amendment.

Mr. Corbyn: Thank you, Mr. Dean. Sometimes one is led from the path of true righteousness by shoddy little manoeuvres round the Committee.
I do not believe that the turnout at elections is necessarily a matter of overriding relevance. People want to know why their right to vote is being taken away and why people whom they elected to a borough council in 1982 are suddenly to assume responsibility for the running of several other services in London. They might not do that, but they might act as agents for the Secretary of State, who cannot be bothered to be present, and who is trying to destroy many of those services and jobs, and to make cuts. That is why the matter is so important.
I should have thought that hon. Members would all be concerned about the matter. My postbag has been full of letters—they are not just tear-off slips—and many of them are from people who have never written to a Member of Parliament before. [AN HON. MEMBER: "How does the hon. Gentleman know that?"' Because they told me that, and I believe what people tell me. They have expressed their concern at their loss of elected representatives. I think that most of the people in my constituency know perfectly well the views of the Islington, North Labour party and myself. They still write to express their grievances.
I should like to see some honesty from those who support the Bill. How many electors from their constituencies have written to them to say that they are opposed to the abolition of elections? How many people have they refused to see? Perhaps more significantly, even at this late hour, the Secretary of State might come to the Chamber pulling a huge trolley containing just a quarter


of the letters written to him by people who oppose the legislation. It is not right for the legislation to be forced through when we do not know how much opposition has been mounted by people throughout London and the metropolitan counties. It is incumbent on the Government to demonstrate the validity of their case.
The Bill will destroy people's right to vote. It will destroy democracy for London and destroy the services which have been built up over the years. The Bill provides for the appointment of people to an interim body—to do what? We do not know. We do not know who will be responsible for all the services. We do not even know how much control the appointed people will have. The crucial issue is not how many from each borough are appointed, but democracy itself. That is what is at stake.
We have heard that this is the start of the decline of democracy in Britain. It certainly is. That is demonstrated by the fact that Conservative Members are prepared to sit up all night. They look most unhappy sleeping on the Government Benches. It must be uncomfortable. It must be uncomfortable for them to have to push through legislation which will cause some chickens to come home to roost. They know the opposition to the legislation and what a particularly nasty little Bill this is.
The Opposition comes from within the Chamber and from outside. Millions of people throughout the country are extremely angry with the legislation. They are angry that elections are to be snatched from them and that people whom they elected to do something else are to be brought in to supervise the butchery of the services which the 1981 elections brought them. The purpose of the legislation is to give the Secretary of State the power to appoint the butcher to destroy the services for which the people in the metropolitan counties and London fought.
The gravest disquiet exists in the inner cities. Hon. Members should recognise that. I do not see the difference between the amendment and the Government proposal, so hon. Members should vote, not only for the amendment, but against the Bill itself.

Mr. Robin Squire: I did not expect to make this speech today. I turned up for another, more exciting, debate later, but I was stung into action by the provocative words of the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). The subtle and persuasive style of Socialism of the hon. Member for Islington, North brings in more votes for the other parties. The more his views are listened to by his leadership, the better it is for the rest of us. Long may he carry on speaking.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey sat down a little too soon. After 80 minutes, he was just getting under way and beginning to launch into a whole new chapter. He gave us a factual account, borough by borough. We were waiting to be transported by flights of fancy, or even of fantasy. He missed one or two tricks. In his Cook's tour of London, he presented us with the spectre of megaboroughs — I remember the word well. He trotted out a description of the conspiracy involved in three boroughs being blessed with four representatives while the others have to make do with three or two.
1 pm
If we want to go along with the conspiracy theory, I have discovered a good conspiracy. The three boroughs in the schedule are Bexley, Bromley and Barnet. The hon.
Gentleman merely said the obvious—that they are all Conservative controlled, but so are many other boroughs. He probably had not noticed that three of the last four Conservative leaders came from those boroughs. If he really wanted to establish a conspiracy theory, he should have made that point.
Much of the hon. Gentleman's speech was devoted to relating votes cast to seats won. As he and many hon. Members know, I am in favour of proportional representation. Some of my colleagues, but not yet a majority, share my views. My concern is that the hon. Gentleman did not spell out why, in selecting votes cast and equating them to seats won, that was an exact equivalent. Those who study the subject know that can be so only if there is a list system for exact equivalent. I assume that I speak for every hon. Member when I say i hat any suggestion for a list system would be profoundly rejected—

Mr. John Golding: Perhaps the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) did not spell out the facts because of a lack of stamina. One hour and 20 minutes is simply drawing breath in such a debate.

Mr. Squire: In a sense, I am flattered by an interjection from an hon. Member whom we all recognise as Parliament's past master. An hour and 20 minutes to the hon. Gentleman is a mere sneeze.
After a while, we are entitled to ask what system will be put forward. We know that it might be something called the additional member system. That provides direct membership relating to those elected. It would be a difficult system, not least because in local government we have become used to having multi-member boards. That is a fairly accepted concept. It would be going backwards if we adopted the AMS system. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was probably referring to the single transferable vote system, but that would not have produced the exact equivalent about which he spoke.
The other point that underlined the hon. Gentleman's contribution, but which was never mentioned, was the single word "population". We know that London has had enormous shifts of population. The largest single reason for the figures in the schedule is that they are the latest reflection of the population. It is also the latest return from the parliamentary constituencies.
My constituency and borough have changed considerably during the past 10 years. Hackney used to have two seats. One was a safe Conservative seat and the other a safe Labour seat. It now has three very safe Conservative seats. That is due not only to population shifts. It highlights that the changes took place in the last redistribution.
I am not sure that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey took long enough to move the amendment. In the absence of a little more clarity, I see little reason to support it, despite sharing his views generally on proportional representation.

Mr. Tracey: This is an important discussion. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for introducing the topic. There are one or two points about his proposals that need further examination. The first one that comes to my mind is that the public have had it spelt out to them—it is increasingly being spelt out by the Government—how the interim council will be operated and made up. We


debated this at some length earlier in the Bill, so I shall not rehearse all the arguments about why the interim council should be run in this way. However, the numerical point is important. The public have been told of our proposals and the numbers which the Government are suggesting. It has been suggested that the interim council should have 92 members, as the GLC has 92 members. However, at present London has 84 parliamentary constituencies.
If we were to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment, which calls for 168 members, on this point alone the public would not know where they were. In matters as important as the interim administration of London before the borough councils take over its government, any confusion in the mind of the public would be extremely bad and would result in a loss of respect for the system of government in London.
I raised the practical problems of having 168 members in county hall with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, and I must say that I was rather disappointed by his answers. I understand that we have all been working hard overnight, so it is my duty to help him on this point. Perhaps I can go over the practical aspects of such a suggestion in some detail. I have some knowledge of county hall, as I was a member of the London Transport Passengers Committee which met there and I spent many happy hours representing the travelling public of London in consumer matters to London Transport.
There is a real problem of seating in the chamber. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was a member of the GLC, and we also have the benefit of the wisdom of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who might wish to tell us about this. It seems to me, from many of the debates that I attended as an observer, that 168 members could not work properly if county hall were made the base of the interim council, which is a sensible place for it to be.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: I ask my hon. Friend to accept from me, as a former deputy chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which holds its full plenary assemblies in the GLC chamber, that he is right to say that such numbers could not be accommodated in the hall.

Mr. Tracey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing his experience with the Committee. For members to work properly in the chamber—hon. Members know a great deal about inadequate space—it is important to have sufficient space and comfort so that they can think clearly, rise to their feet and import their wisdom on London—

Mr. Tony Banks: Perhaps I could correct that misinformation. County hall could accommodate with some comfort 168 members, and they would have far more facilities there than we have in the Chamber. Physically, they could be accommodated.

Mr. Tracey: I am very glad to have drawn out the wisdom of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, who has great experience in this sphere and has spent many hours at county hall doing things for London. I wonder whether he accepts the idea that there should be 168 councillors—

Mr. Banks: indicated dissent.

Mr. Tracey: The hon. Gentleman does not. Perhaps he will—

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: Will my hon. Friend develop his unique line of thinking on the relationship between accommodation and clarity of thought? Is there a relationship between clear thought and the amount of space available? Do American Senators have greater clarity of thought than Members of Parliament because of the large suites of offices available to them? I should not think so, but I should be interested to hear my hon. Friend's views.

Mr. Tracey: I do not wish to be sidetracked from my point about the general practical difficulties, but I believe —and I am sure that psychologists will agree with me— that when a body of men and women who are thinking of weighty matters are packed too tightly, they suffer sheer physical discomfort. My own feeling is that if the 168 councillors were too tightly packed into their seats they would not be able to do the job as well as the smaller number that is proposed by the Government.

Mr. Proctor: Is there a relationship between the amount of space occupied by a councillor and the length of time spent in debate on a particular issue? Might last night's episode give my hon. Friend some food for thought?

Mr. Tracey: I do not think that I wish to develop that point further. If my hon. Friend wishes to do so, I am sure that the Committee will listen with great interest.
Other practical problems would be encountered. I am not being facetious in any way when I say that problems would arise in connection with the office space. County hall has to accommodate a large number of civil servants and bureaucrats as well as a number of members-92 at present. The offices would become exceedingly cramped and the members would not be able to do their job properly.
The same problem would arise in connection with another feature of county hall. The car park is grossly overcrowded. Many times, when attempting to park my car there when on official business, I have had to drive round and round to find a space and leave my car safely in the car park while engaged on my business.
Many members ride bicycles these days or take public transport, so that problem might not arise. In that case, however, there will be the problem of accommodation for bicycles. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is perhaps the best-known cyclist in this place. Perhaps he has some thoughts on the matter. If we are to encourage cyclists — and we should encourage members of the interim council to cycle to work—they will need adequate accommodation.

Mr. John Wheeler: Discussion of the car park suggests another question. Why should we be talking about 168 potential members? My hon. Friend will recall that legislation is under consideration which will remove London Transport from the control of the GLC. London Transport will go to a new authority in July. That change will reduce the functions of the GLC very considerably. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in these circumstances, there will be no need for 168 councillors?


If the ILEA is directly elected in 1985, responsibilities will be still further reduced. That must render large numbers of councillors unnecessary.

Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend, who has great experience of London government matters, is right. Perhaps he will have an opportunity to develop that point later.
I do not want to go all around the building picking up every point, because I am not the resident engineer at county hall. However, we all accept that such a vast number of members will create problems in the present county hall restaurant, which overlooks the river. Facilities there are probably better than those that we have here. Members of the interim council might be discontented if they could not sit at the pleasant tables in the bay window.
I have already raised the issue of 168 members' attendance allowances with my hon. Friend the Minister. We all know that councillors can carry out their duties in many different ways, with different levels of dedication, and that their attendance times can vary. There will be a fair amount of work to do in the interim council. It would be unacceptable for Conservatives, with their eyes constantly on public expenditure, even to contemplate paying attendance and travel allowances to 168 members. That would double the present bill, and I therefore have to reject the suggestion of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.

Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend will be aware that there are already some professional councillors in county hall who live on their attendance allowance. If their number were increased substantially for the dying days of the GLC, does he agree that there would be a danger of there being even more professional councillors?

Mr. Tracey: That is a strong point. I do not know how many full-time councillors there are in the present GLC. Perhaps the hon. Member for Newham, North-West can help, as he is a member of the majority party there and will know how many of his colleagues are full-time councillors and are therefore presumably drawing fairly considerable attendance allowances. With 168 members instead of 92 the bill will inevitably be larger, but it is difficult to say how much larger.
Another fundamental point about the membership of the interim council concerns expertise. It might be argued that 168 members provides a greater bank of expertise. There are those, such as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, who have spent a lot of time in county hall, and we are obviously looking at replacing the present amount of expertise with something comparable among those drawn from the borough councils. However, it is not reasonable to expect that 168 such people can be found in London. From my fairly extensive discussions with leaders of the borough councils in London, I am well aware that they are rather alarmed about the provision of men and women of sufficient expertise and with a sufficient commitment to time. At present the GLC's meetings are held principally in the day time. That will cause great difficulties for councillors who are still engaged in running aspects of their own borough councils as well.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that the majority party at county hall decided

that GLC members needed, greatly increased secretarial support, so they expanded that side dramatically? If such secretarial help, research assistance, and so on, was made available to 168 people, there would be a considerable explosion in the number of staff and the costs involved. What would that do to our rates?

Mr. Tracey: I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) mentioned that space would be created by the change in the ILEA management and in the functioning of London Regional Transport. I am sorry, Mr. Dean, but I have been rather sidetracked by this new evidence of a Lib-Lab pact on the Opposition Front Bench. I see that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is being surrounded by Labour Front Benchers. That takes me back a year or two—

Mr. Soames: The guilty men.

Mr. Cohen: The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has just mentioned the guilty men. Does not the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) regard himself as one of the guilty men by supporting a Bill which is all about gerrymandering and abolishing elections?

Mr. Tracey: I cannot accept that criticism. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that the interim council will be a representative rather than an elected council. However, I notice that the next amendment deals with a similar position in the metropolitan councils. That amendment has been tabled by the Labour party. I am glad that Opposition Members are beginning to see reason. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman cannot accuse me or any of my hon. Friends of gerrymandering.

Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the immense detail and breadth of work that has gone into preparing the Bill and the way in which he has so eloquently developed his argument, it is clear that there is real equity and the basis of real efficiency in what my right hon. and hon. Friends have been trying to do? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the secret of the success of this whole operation?

Mr. Tracey: With his usual perception, my hon. Friend has put his finger right on it. The Bill's whole purpose is to allow for the business-like transfer of the government of London from the present bureaucracy of the GLC, through the interim council, to the borough councils; the very form of local government which Mr. Livingstone — that well-known leader of the majority party in county hall—accepted as the best form of local government in London in his address to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy in 1982.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is correct to describe Mr. Livingstone as a well-known leader, as he is probably better known throughout the country than any hon. Member present in the Chamber. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that for the short period for which the interim council is supposed to operate the 168 people fighting to find a place in the chamber, a space in the car park and the best table in the restaurant will be hard put to do anything productive, because they will probably spend most of the 11 months for which they will be there trying to find their way around the 6½ miles of corridor at county hall?

Mr. Tracey: In these days, when politics are so often seen as controversy, I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right. County hall is a maze, just as the GLC has become a puzzle for the residents of London in recent years as they try to work out where their very high rates are going.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am a little numb from listening to 20 hours of Opposition speeches in the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill. On his earlier comment about car parks, does not the overcrowding in the car parks suggest a strange discontinuity between Socialist proclamation and practice, or does it show that the Government's economic success has made it possible for many more people to afford cars?

Mr. Tracey: rose—

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. A very important meeting is taking place between the management of British Leyland—not just the shop stewards but the official trade unions under the chairmanship of Mr. Gerry Russell. Can you give us any guidance as to the likely timing of the debate under Standing Order No. 10, as a great many people are affected by the crucial issues involved? I merely seek guidance from the Chair so that we may let people know.

Mr. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean. I hope that you will explain to the Committee that, as I understand it, we can proceed with the Standing Order No. 10 debate this afternoon if hon. Members feel able to terminate the Committee proceedings in time. I hope that you will also confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) sat down about two hours ago in good time to ensure that that would be possible. If hon. Members on both sides desired it, is not the procedure such that if we continued beyond 2.30 pm we should necessarily proceed first tomorrow to the Standing Order No. 10 debate on the situation at Bathgate about which the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned?

Mr. Fatchett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean. I look to you for guidance. Is it in order for what is clearly an alliance between the Liberals and the Conservatives to prevent the discussion of a crucial issue for my constituents—the loss of their jobs at British Leyland? The Liberals have been preventing that debate because they are going along with the Government in creating redundancies. I hope that in your capacity as Chairman of the Committee and Deputy Speaker of the House you will make it clear to the alliance between the Government and the Liberals that my constituents—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the point of order. I shall deal with the reasonable points of order which have been made. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked for guidance. The House is in Committee and the proceedings before the Committee are in order. It is not possible for me, as Chairman of the Committee, to anticipate what may happen when the Committee proceedings are completed. I cannot help the hon. Member further than that. The Committee must decide whether to continue with these proceedings or to adjourn. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. Is it not the case that because of the

antics of this morning the urgent debate that Mr. Speaker decided we should have today on the crisis in the car industry will almost inevitably be lost or deferred? Is it not also true that the legislation, which all Opposition parties purported to oppose, will pass to Third Reading a day earlier than necessary because of the foolishness and foolhardiness of the Liberal party?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I must repeat what I have said. At the moment the House is in Committee and I am in the hands of the Committee. It is for the Committee to decide whether or not to continue its proceedings. There is nothing more that I can do to help the Committee.

Mr. Richard Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. You will recall, Mr. Dean, that we have sat through the night and heard long speeches from the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) until about 4 am, when most Labour Members disappeared. You will also recollect that, after that, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke for one hour and 20 minutes. Does it not come ill from either the Labour or Liberal parties now to suggest that, having sat through the Committee for more than 12 hours, we should be deprived of seeing the Bill through to the end?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We are now straying into a debate about whether the Committee should report progress. I cannot allow that to happen as there is no such motion before the Committee.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean. Given that Mr. Speaker ruled that a Standing Order No. 10 application on the issue of British Leyland was more important than a debate on cruise missiles, at what point would it be in order for me, if the Committee does not make progress, to move that we invite Mr. Speaker to give his opinion about this dreadful delay?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I cannot help the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). We are debating a simple matter. At the moment the House is in Committee. So long as the debate proceeds, the House will remain in Committee. If there were a motion before the Committee that the Chairman should report progress and ask leave to sit again, the Committee could take a view and, if necessary, vote on such a motion.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. Will you clarify the position so that we understand it fully? Would another possibility be for the Government to move the Bill from Committee to Third Reading? Would not the consequence of that be that the Bill could be passed a day earlier as a result of the Liberals' actions? Is that technically the position?

The Second Deputy Chairman: It is not possible for me to help the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). I understand his point, but at present we are in Committee. It is not possible for me to anticipate what might happen if we ceased to sit as a committee.

Mr. Winnick: Can you help us, Mr. Dean, on what is an important point? It is clear, is it not, that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals want the debate that Mr. Speaker granted yesterday under Standing Order No. 10? Since that debate is of crucial importance to so many people, is it not in order for ways to be found for the debate that Mr. Speaker allowed yesterday to go ahead?


Otherwise, if we proceed as we have been as a result of Liberal and Tory tactics, there will be no way in which that crucial debate can take place.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. This is now developing into a debate with no motion before the Committee, and that is irregular. I well understand the points that have been made. I am asking the Committee to appreciate what I can and cannot do. It is not possible for me as Chairman of the Committee to anticipate what might happen if we were to decide to go out of Committee.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. Following a debate of over two hours of which I have taken careful note we have reached a stage where the amendment has been fully aired.
Are you in a position to accept a motion that the Question be now put? Are you in a position to accept a motion that the Question on this section of the debate be put?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman wishes to move the closure on the debate?

Mr. Nellist: In which case—[Interruption.] Can I have some peace and quiet? Right?

Mr. Cunliffe: Sit down.

Mr. Nellist: What I am asking, Mr. Dean, is—[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The question is, That the Question be now put.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes, 103, Noes, 207.

Division No. 330]
[1.38 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Freud, Clement


Alton, David
Garrett, W. E.


Anderson, Donald
George, Bruce


Ashdown, Paddy
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Godman, Dr Norman


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Golding, John


Barron, Kevin
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Berth, A. J.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bell, Stuart
Hardy, Peter


Boyes, Roland
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Haynes, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Campbell, Ian
Howells, Geraint


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clarke, Thomas
John, Brynmor


Clay, Robert
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cohen, Harry
Kennedy, Charles


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Lamond, James


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Craigen, J. M.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Loyden, Edward


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dewar, Donald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dixon, Donald
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dormand, Jack
Madden, Max


Dubs, Alfred
Marek, Dr John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maxton, John


Eastham, Ken
Michie, William


Ellis, Raymond
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ewing, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Nellist, David


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon





O'Brien, William
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Park, George
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Parry, Robert
Tinn, James


Patchett, Terry
Torney, Tom


Pendry, Tom
Wainwright, R.


Pike, Peter
Wareing, Robert


Randall, Stuart
White, James


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Wigley, Dafydd


Robertson, George
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Rooker, J. W.
Winnick, David


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Woodall, Alec


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)



Soley, Clive
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stott, Roger
Mr. John Cartwright and


Strang, Gavin
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Straw, Jack





NOES


Adley, Robert
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Alexander, Richard
Grist, Ian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Grylls, Michael


Amess, David
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Ancram, Michael
Hanley, Jeremy


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Harvey, Robert


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Haselhurst, Alan


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Bellingham, Henry
Hawksley, Warren


Bendall, Vivian
Hayes, J.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Hayhoe, Barney


Berry, Sir Anthony
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Best, Keith
Heddle, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Henderson, Barry


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hill, James


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hind, Kenneth


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hirst, Michael


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Holt, Richard


Bright, Graham
Hooson, Tom


Brinton, Tim
Howard, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Butterfill, John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cash, William
Hunter, Andrew


Chapman, Sydney
Irving, Charles


Chope, Christopher
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Churchill, W. S.
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Coombs, Simon
Key, Robert


Cope, John
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Corrie, John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Couchman, James
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knowles, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lamont, Norman


Dicks, Terry
Lang, Ian


Dorrell, Stephen
Latham, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lawler, Geoffrey


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Emery, Sir Peter
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Farr, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Favell, Anthony
Lightbown, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lilley, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Luce, Richard


Franks, Cecil
Lyell, Nicholas


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
McCrindle, Robert


Freeman, Roger
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Galley, Roy
MacGregor, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maclean, David John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Madel, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Maginnis, Ken


Gow, Ian
Major, John


Greenway, Harry
Malone, Gerald


Gregory, Conal
Maples, John






Marland, Paul
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Martin, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Mather, Carol
Silvester, Fred


Maude, Hon Francis
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Speller, Tony


Mellor, David
Spencer, Derek


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Squire, Robin


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stanley, John


Moate, Roger
Stern, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Moore, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Sumberg, David


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Terlezki, Stefan


Nicholson, J.
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Page, John (Harrow W)
Thornton, Malcolm


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Thurnham, Peter


Pattie, Geoffrey
Tracey, Richard


Pawsey, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pollock, Alexander
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Porter, Barry
Waldegrave, Hon William


Powell, William (Corby)
Walden, George


Powley, John
Wall, Sir Patrick


Price, Sir David
Waller, Gary


Proctor, K. Harvey
Ward, John


Raffan, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Renton, Tim
Watts, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wheeler, John


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Whitfield, John


Rowe, Andrew
Wood, Timothy


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Woodcock, Michael


Ryder, Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sackville, Hon Thomas



Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Tellers for the Noes:


Sayeed, Jonathan
Mr. Douglas Hogg and


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Michael Neubert.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Straw: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I shall be brief. The reasons why we are here have been well aired. We all know that the antics of the Liberal party have been such as to place at risk two items of business that are important to the people of Scotland, to the people of London and to the people whom we represent—

Mr. Nellist: And to the people of Coventry.

Mr. Straw: Indeed. As my hon. Friend says, it is important to the people of Coventry. The Liberals adopted these tactics without realising that they were about to shoot into their feet. We can preserve the business this afternoon and ensure that there is proper debate of these issues by moving swiftly to a vote on the motion.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I hope that if the motion is put to a vote my hon. Friends will think it right that we should continue the debate. We have made a lot of progress in a long sitting, and I think that there is a feeling in the Committee that this business should now be disposed of. In the circumstances, I think that we would do well to continue with the debate until the proceedings are completed.
I think, if I may say so, that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was a little hard. The Liberal party

will have to defend itself. Some of its behaviour during the course of the night has been outrageous. [Interruption.] I was in the Chamber to see the astonishing spectacle of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) addressing the Committee from the Dispatch Box.
Labour Members have also kept the proceedings going. One thinks of the speeches by the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), who now seems to have seen the error of his ways, and for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie). There have been long debates at the instance of all the Opposition parties, and it ill lies in their mouth at this stage to want to bring the proceedings to a close.
I realise that there is great interest in and concern about a matter that is to be the subject of a Standing Order No. 10 debate. I have the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that that debate will still be held, presumably tomorrow. I understand the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House, but that debate will be held. It will not be lost as a result of these proceedings continuing. Therefore, I hope that if the matter is pressed to a Division my hon. and right hon. Friends will feel it right to reject the motion and continue the debate.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has quite usefully offered the House the opportunity to proceed with the debate on British Leyland today, instead of tomorrow, as the House would otherwise be obliged to do. There was no question at any stage that that debate could be threatened by a proper discussion of this Bill. If the hon. Member for Blackburn tempts me to disclose what hon. Members representing Labour London constituencies said about the Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill, it would be very unwise —[Interruption.] We have given the Bill the ample consideration that it deserved, Labour Members neglected it, and now we are happy to proceed, if other hon. Members of the Committee wish to, with matters which we can discuss today or tomorrow.

Mr. Peter Shore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean.

The Second Deputy Chairman: It might help the right hon. Gentleman if I say that we are at present debating whether we should report progress.

Mr. Shore: I was about to speak to that point, Mr. Dean.
We have heard an unwelcome statement from the Secretary of State, because only a few hours ago it was our clear understanding — indeed, it was the wish of the House—that we should today proceed to have a major debate under Standing Order No. 10 on the savage closures, in the commercial vehicle industry, and all their implications, at Bathgate and outside Leeds. It was also our understanding that we should debate a matter of considerable importance to London Members, the GLC legislation. As a result —I share some sympathy with the Secretary of State in this — of the extraordinary filibuster and nonsense that we have had from the Liberal party and its allies, apparently those debates have been lost.
The Secretary of State said that the Standing Order No. 10 debate would simply be postponed to another day. May


we have clear confirmation of that, and may we be told whether it is for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make any such commitment?

Mr. Tom Clarke: Further to the point of order which I raised with you some moments ago, Mr. Dean—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. It may help if I remind the Committee, so that we do not have any confusion, that we are not at present on points of order. We are debating whether the Committee should report progress. Remarks directly related to that are in order.

Mr. Clarke: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Dean. If hon. Members had listened to me, they would have understood that—although, like others, I had missed a night's sleep—I was making a speech and not raising a point of order.
I was about to say that in an earlier point of order, when only a handful of hon. Members were present, I said that Mr. Speaker had given a ruling to the effect that he thought that the issue of Leyland and Bathgate transcended even the vital issue of cruise missiles. I am simply suggesting that the Committee should take no different a view from that taken by Mr. Speaker.
I must add— [Interruption.] Those who interrupt do the cause which they attempt to support no good whatever. Some hon. Members criticise people in industry, but when this afternoon the men from Bathgate come to hear our debate, they will not be particularly proud about the way in which we have conducted our affairs.
The announcement yesterday by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was shattering for Bathgate and Scotland. We in Scotland are not prepared to wait for another day to debate a matter which, in the minds of many people, should have been debated yesterday.
The people of Britain look to the House of Commons for leadership and to us to assert democratic values. The best way to do that, in the interests of Scottish industry and democracy in the United Kingdom, is to support the course suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. May I ask you to confirm that under Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker ruled that the emergency debate should take precedence over the next day's business? If we sit today, that debate takes precedence over today's business, and—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member was not in his place when I ruled on that earlier. I said then that it was entirely a matter for the Committee to decide whether to continue with its debate and that it was not possible for me to anticipate what might or might not happen when the Committee ceased to sit.

Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean. I put it to you that Mr. Speaker's ruling is that the emergency debate will take precedence over the next day's business. Whenever we cease to sit, the next debate before the House will be the emergency debate. Whether that occurs later today or tomorrow has nothing to do with you, Mr. Dean. That ruling has been made. Such a debate must take precedence the next day we sit. Will you please confirm that?

2 pm

The Second Deputy Chairman: I cannot add anything to what I have already said.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I hope that I can help the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has recognised that, in parliamentary terms, it is still Tuesday. I wish to respond to the point made by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). As I said, the Government recognise the great concern about the statement made earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It is, of course, for Mr. Speaker to determine when that debate will take place, but I should have thought that there would be everything to be said for it to take place on Thursday. If Mr. Speaker so decides, the Government would be happy to fall in with that decision. That is the assurance that I can give the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Well done.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I rise on a single and specific point, which could determine the attitude of many hon. Members to the motion before the Committee. The Secretary of State said that, if today's business is wiped out, "presumably" the Standing Order No. 10 debate will take place tomorrow. Would it not be more courteous to the Committee if we had a statement from the Leader of the House rather than the Secretary of State for the Environment about how the future business of the House will be affected by what has happened today?

Mr. Madden: In wriggling out of their responsibility for sabotaging a debate on a crisis about jobs in Scotland and west Yorkshire, the Liberal and SDP Members are trying to shift the responsibility and blame on to others. Hon. Members who have been present throughout the night know that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke from 11.3 am to 1.20 pm. That speech unduly occupied the Committee. Had it not been for that speech, the Committee would have completed its proceedings and the crisis debate, promised yesterday by Mr. Speaker, on the threat to jobs in Scotland and west Yorkshire could have taken place. The blame for the loss of that debate lies squarely and firmly with Liberal and SDP Members.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Before we proceed with the debate, I appeal to the Committee to restrict comments to the motion before the Committee. The motion before the Committee is that I do report progress and ask leave to sit again. It is not in order to go over what happened during the preceding hour.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) suggested that it was a simple issue of whether we should go on or stop. I suggest that it is a more complicated issue. I doubt that Labour Members are in a fit state to go ahead, because I believe that they have had far too much sleep. [Laughter.]
While I and hundreds of my hon. Friends were sitting up through the night passionately discussing the affairs of London, and how we can make the right judgment for the good of the people of London, I was staggered to find that those who went round the streets of London saying that they would fight the Bill tooth and nail were not present. There were times when the Opposition Front Bench was empty, and hardly a Labour Member was present. Sometimes there is a problem from having too little sleep,


and sometimes there is a problem from having too much. Opposition Members have obviously been in their beds for so long that it would be a mistake for them to carry on with the debate.
On the other hand, there is a problem if we stop. If we do not go ahead with the debate, we shall simply give public appreciation to one of the most scandalous and irresponsible filibustering nonsenses that I have ever heard. You are aware, Mr. Dean, that I have been in the House for a long time. I have been present at some debates in which hon. Members spoke for a long time because they felt passionately about an issue, but very rarely have I heard hon. Members speaking for a long time, and trotting out absolute rubbish. I am afraid that that is what we have had from the Liberal party.
If we stopped now, it would simply give credence to an irresponsible act of contempt for the poor working people of Scotland, who want us to discuss their jobs and affairs today. It is a finely balanced issue. The people of London will be well aware that they have been shamefully let down by those who claim to be their champions in the Labour party, but we must also let them know that the Liberals and Social Democrats in the House of Commons act in a wholly irresponsible way that is an affront to democracy.
Therefore, on balance, I believe that we should go ahead with the debate, finish the episode and discuss it rationally, sensibly and not in the same wholly irresponsible and erratic way as the Liberal party.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I should like to support the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
The intention is simple — it is to save today's business. Today, people have come down from Bathgate, who require that the House debate the issue that was decided upon earlier today. I should like to place on record my exception—which is the feeling of many of my hon. Friends—to the fact that the Liberal party, overnight, set out deliberately to destroy today's business, in the knowledge that, by their doing so, the crisis in Scottish industry would not be debated today, when many people came down from Scotland to witness our proceedings.
Furthermore, what has also not been drawn to the attention of a full House is the fact that the Finance Bill Committee sat all night—so Labour Members were not asleep, as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said—debating for 20 hours the arrangements for the Budget. Despite representations from the alliance, neither Liberals nor Social Democrats contributed in the Finance Bill last night to the debate on industrial democracy. They are important matters and the country should know that the alliance did not contribute.

Mr. Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. The purpose of moving the motion was to ensure that we can go on to consider the business on the Order Paper for Wednesday. Am I right in believing that, unless we have a division in the next minute or so, we shall lose that business? I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is correct.

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Question put,That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 137, Noes 214.

Division No 331]
[2.10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Alton, David
Kirkwood, Archibald


Anderson, Donald
Lamond, James


Ashdown, Paddy
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Ashton, Joe
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Loyden, Edward


Barron, Kevin
McCartney, Hugh


Beith, A. J.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bell, Stuart
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Benn, Tony
McNamara, Kevin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McWilliam, John


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Madden, Max


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Maginnis, Ken


Buchan, Norman
Marek, Dr John


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Ian
Maxton, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Meacher, Michael


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Michie, William


Cartwright, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Clarke, Thomas
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Clay, Robert
Nellist, David


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Nicholson, J.


Cohen, Harry
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
O'Brien, William


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
O'Neill, Martin


Corbett, Robin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Corbyn, Jeremy
Park, George


Craigen, J. M.
Parry, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Patchett, Terry


Dalyell, Tam
Pavitt, Laurie


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Pendry, Tom


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Pike, Peter


Deakins, Eric
Radice, Giles


Dewar, Donald
Randall, Stuart


Dixon, Donald
Redmond, M.


Dobson, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Dormand, Jack
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Dubs, Alfred
Robertson, George


Duffy, A. E. P.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Eastham, Ken
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mp'n SE)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hamp'n NE)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Skinner, Dennis


Ewing, Harry
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Fatchett, Derek
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Soley, Clive


Forrester, John
Stott, Roger


Foster, Derek
Strang, Gavin


Foulkes, George
Straw, Jack


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Freud, Clement
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


George, Bruce
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Godman, Dr Norman
Tinn, James


Golding, John
Torney, Tom


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Wainwright, R.


Hardy, Peter
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Wareing, Robert


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Weetch, Ken


Haynes, Frank
White, James


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Wigley, Dafydd


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Howells, Geraint
Winnick, David


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Woodall, Alec


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Janner, Hon Greville
Tellers for the Ayes:


John, Brynmor
Mr. James Hamilton and


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Mr. Allen McKay


Kennedy, Charles







NOES


Alexander, Richard
Henderson, Barry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hill, James


Amess, David
Hind, Kenneth


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Hirst, Michael


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Holt, Richard


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Hooson, Tom


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Howard, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Bendall, Vivian
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Berry, Sir Anthony
Hunter, Andrew


Best, Keith
Irving, Charles


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Key, Robert


Braine, Sir Bernard
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Bright, Graham
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Brinton, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lamont, Norman


Bruinvels, Peter
Lang, Ian


Bryan, Sir Paul
Latham, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Lawler, Geoffrey


Butterfill, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Cash, William
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Chapman, Sydney
Lightbown, David


Chope, Christopher
Lilley, Peter


Churchill, W. S.
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lord, Michael


Coombs, Simon
Luce, Richard


Cope, John
Lyell, Nicholas


Corrie, John
McCrindle, Robert


Couchman, James
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Crouch, David
MacGregor, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Dickens, Geoffrey
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Dicks, Terry
Maclean, David John


Dorrell, Stephen
Madel, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Major, John


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Malone, Gerald


Eggar, Tim
Maples, John


Emery, Sir Peter
Marland, Paul


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mates, Michael


Favell, Anthony
Mather, Carol


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maude, Hon Francis


Forman, Nigel
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Franks, Cecil
Mellor, David


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Freeman, Roger
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Galley, Roy
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moate, Roger


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Monro, Sir Hector


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Moore, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Gow, Ian
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Green way, Harry
Moynihan, Hon C.


Gregory, Conal
Nelson, Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Neubert, Michael


Grist, Ian
Nicholls, Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Page, John (Harrow W)


Hanley, Jeremy
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Harvey, Robert
Pawsey, James


Haselhurst, Alan
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Pollock, Alexander


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Porter, Barry


Hawksley, Warren
Powell, William (Corby)


Hayes, J.
Powley, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Price, Sir David


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Proctor, K. Harvey


Heddle, John
Raffan, Keith





Renton, Tim
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Rhodes James, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Terlezki, Stefan


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rost, Peter
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rowe, Andrew
Thornton, Malcolm


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thurnham, Peter


Ryder, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walden, George


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Silvester, Fred
Waller, Gary


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Ward, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Warren, Kenneth


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Watts, John


Speller, Tony
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Spencer, Derek
Wheeler, John


Squire, Robin
Whitney, Raymond


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilkinson, John


Stanley, John
Wood, Timothy


Stern, Michael
Woodcock, Michael


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)



Stokes, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Sumberg, David
Mr. David Hunt and


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Mr. Douglas Hogg.

Question accordingly negatived

Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. May I again try to clarify exactly what is happening and seek your guidance? As you know, we expected—and clearly we shall not now have—a debate under Standing Order No. 10 on the position at Bathgate and Leeds. We have been told by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that he presumes, hopes, has an expectation of or will use his good offices to ensure that we have that debate tomorrow. However, I am not all that satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's assurances or about his ability necessarily to deliver in the present situation. I ask your guidance about when we shall know what is happening and whether we are to have a statement from the Leader of the House that will make it clear to us.
I urge this upon you, Mr. Dean, because, especially from the Scottish viewpoint and that of right hon. and hon. Members who represent Leeds constituencies, we are in an extremely difficult position. It is clear that, during the course of the evening, the Liberals stumbled into a strategy of trying to talk out today's business, but appeared to collapse in confusion and indecision half way through the morning, and Wednesday's business has now been killed quite cynically by the Conservatives, who seem to think that there is some party advantage in getting the Third Reading of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill a day earlier than expected.
I regard this as a confused, muddled, chaotic and undignified state of affairs, which is resented by me and many of my colleagues. More importantly, it will be resented by the Scottish public. In my view, it is in the best interests of the House of Commons that the position be clarified as quickly as possible so that we know when we are likely to have an opportunity to express the deep bitterness, anger and frustration that is felt throughout Scotland about the way that the Bathgate workers have been treated by this callous Government.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): It may be for the convenience of the House if I at once respond to what has just been said. Clearly, it appears that the business for Wednesday 23 May will be lost. That being so, I shall see that the usual channels immediately consider the situation, and I shall make a revised order of business for tomorrow which I shall make known as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and I represent 400 people whose jobs are to be lost. The House of Commons decided that that situation merited discussion today. We have told the people of Leeds that the Liberal party does not have the slightest interest in jobs. We have told them that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) is interested only in faffing about in the House of Commons. I want to know whether, in so doing, we are expressing the views of the House of Commons.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I dealt with these points of order a number of times earlier. It may help the Committee if I repeat what I said, because I may anticipate some of the points that other hon. Members wish to raise.
My powers are limited. The House is in Committee, and we are now about to return to the debate on amendment No. 129. It is for the Committee, not for me, to decide for how long it will sit. It is not in my power as Chairman to anticipate what will happen when the House eventually resumes. However, the Committee will have heard what the Leader of the House said a few moments ago, and the right hon. Gentleman is in a much better position to help the Committee than I am.

Mr. Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. I deeply regret the fact that the only results of the activities of the evening will be that Third Reading will be debated a day earlier and that we have lost Question Time.
Would you, Mr. Dean, crave the indulgence of the Leader of the House to make a further statement? It is not satisfactory merely to say that there will be a readjustment of tomorrow's business. A suggestion was made or a hope expressed — a pledge was made — by the Secretary of State for the Environment that the debate under Standing Order No. 10 would appear in that rearranged business. It would be helpful if the Leader of the House made it clear that he intended to honour that pledge.

Mr. Biffen: I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to anticipate —[Interruption] —what business statement I will make. However, one would need to have the most monumental misconception of realities to suppose that the Standing Order No. 10 debate will not take place.

Mr. Proctor: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. It is now an hour and two minutes since the very good speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] —was interrupted by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), who attempted to move a closure motion, which you accepted. The Opposition have therefore lost one hour and two minutes in procedural motions, during which time the debate could have been concluded. I should like you, Mr. Dean, to rule on what took place immediately before the

closure was moved by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, because it was in the knowledge and sight of every right hon. and hon. Member in the Chamber at the time that, when he attempted to move the closure, the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) attempted physically and by intimidation to—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am not clear what the hon. Member's point of order is.

Mr. Proctor: My point of order concerns whether it was in order for the hon. Member for Leigh to press friendly and comradely persuasion on the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East and to try physically to pull him down to resume his seat. If we have intimidation in the ranks of the Opposition, it will not be long before Opposition Members try to intimidate all right hon. and hon. Members. I urge you, Mr. Dean, to rule on that point and to condemn the intimidatory tactics of the hon. Member for Leigh on the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I shall answer the point of order. Certain things have happened this evening that do not happen every day of the parliamentary week, but nothing has been out of order.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. May I ask for your guidance and, through you, clarification from the Leader of the House? Yesterday's statement concerned British Leyland's corporate plan for Bathgate and Leeds and the privatisation of Jaguar. Most Jaguar cars are assembled in Coventry and many of my constituents work at that factory. Earlier, I moved the closure and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) did the same later, and on both occasions Conservative Members denied workers at Bathgate, Leeds and Coventry their right to have the House of Commons discuss privatisation and redundancies.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We are now straying far from genuine points of order. I remind the Committee that we are now on the resumed debate on amendment No. 129, and I hope that we can proceed with it rapidly.

Mr. Beith: I am anxious to enable the Committee to get on. Would it not, in the words of the Leader of the House, be a monumental misconstruction of Standing Order No. 10 to suppose anything other than that it will be taken on the next available sitting day? If you, Mr. Dean, are pressed on this matter again, I hope that you will make that quite clear to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I hope that if you are pressed further on related matters, you will remind members of the Committee that you have no option but to call those hon. Members who stand in the hope of being called to speak on amendment No. 129, and that it was Labour Members who tried to continue the debate after 12 noon. Indeed, on the motion to adjourn to the debate as late as 2.10 pm., it was Labour Members who prevented Wednesday's business being considered.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I call Mr. Tracey to resume the debate.

Mr. Tracey: rose—

Mr. Marlow: On a serious and short point of order, Mr. Dean. I understand that on 14 June there is an election to that great gravy train in Strasbourg, the European Assembly. In two minutes' time we are due to have the final Question Time on European issues before that election takes place. When shall we be able to cross-examine the Government on those matters before the election?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have dealt with these matters. I call Mr. Tracey.

Mr. Tracey: As I was saying—

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) for allowing me to put this point of order. As one of the London Members who have sat right through this historic debate, I am delighted to see the shed end so full. I only hope that all hon. Members present will remain for the rest of the debate.
My point of order is this. As the Leader of the House is here, will he tell us about another piece of business that has been lost—the Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill — and when that is to be discussed? Secondly, if we continue through the rest of the Committee stage of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, at what time is it expected that we shall reach Third Reading, as I understand that we shall go straight into that debate?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I should be rash indeed if I tried to predict how long the debate will last. I call Mr. Tracey.

Mr. Tracey: As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted—

Mr. Fatchett: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. I appreciate your giving way yet again on this matter. It is important that all the workers threatened with job losses — today's debate on which has been lost due to the antics of the Liberals—should have a clear answer from the Leader of the House why that debate cannot take place today and when it is to be held. Will the Leader of the House now give a clear answer, as Labour Members are concerned about jobs and disturbed at the answer that has been given?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I call Mr. Tracey.

Mr. Tracey: As I was saying before I was interrupted—

Mr. Donald Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. As you know, the request for a debate under Standing Order No. 10 was granted on the ground of urgency. That debate has now disappeared, along with the other business for Wednesday. In view of the vital concern about the British Leyland closure at Bathgate in Scotland, will the Leader of the House give an unequivocal guarantee that that debate will take place tomorrow without any doubt whatever?

The Second Deputy Chairman: As I believe the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there is nothing that I can do to help him on that. The Committee has heard the Leader of the House on two occasions and it has heard him say that at an appropriate moment he will make a business statement. As the right hon. Member for Western Isles

(Mr. Stewart) and the whole Committee know, that is not a matter for me. We must now resume the debate. I call Mr. Tracey.

Mr. Tracey: As I was saying before I was interrupted for the fourth time—

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Dean.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not abuse a point of order. I remind him that it must be a genuine point of order and that it must not be one on which I have already ruled.

Mr. Clarke: I shall endeavour to comply with that, Mr. Dean. I seek your guidance. It seems to me that there has been no clarification. Would it be in order for the Leader of the House, who in my experience is usually a most helpful man, to clarify the matter beyond doubt by telling us the timetable that we may expect?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot anticipate the full statement that I shall make later, but I assure all those who are anxious about the Standing Order No. 10 debate that they will not be disappointed.

Mr. Tracey: As I was saying, the amendment, which was moved by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey from the Opposition Dispatch Box, is most important.
I have found the debate a rather upsetting experience. It has to be understood that this is an unusual situation for a new Member to find himself in. We have been debating these matters all night. I had the experience, having fallen asleep for a few moments, of waking up to hear the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) apparently attacking the boundaries of my constituency and referring — I think I heard correctly — to the skinheads of Surbiton. I take that as a grave affront to my constituents. I am afraid that my experience this afternoon has made me a little emotional.
I return to the point that I was exploring before I was interrupted more than an hour ago. I recollect that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) had intervened to take up the practical difficulties of car parking in to county hall complex. He made a perfectly fair point when he said that these days more and more people are able to afford to buy cars, because of the Government's policies. With 168 members at county hall he foresaw the difficulty of more and more cars needing car parking facilities. I accept that point and I think that I had made it pretty fully before he intervened.
I conclude by considering the serious matter of the workload which will fall on members—who, we hope, will be leading members of the borough councils of Greater London when they are faced with having to take on the extra duties of being members of the interim council in county hall. I have heard from many of the leaders of councils in London that they would I find it extremely difficult to allow the time for four, six or perhaps even eight leading members of their borough councils to become members of the interim council in county hall. That is a critical factor in the discussion of this amendment, which, as we know, proposes to put 168 members—a completely unnecessary number—on the interim council in county hall.
The amendment is unacceptable to us. I accept that it was a great moment of glory for the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey to take over the Opposition


Front Bench and to move the amendment from the Opposition Dispatch Box, but that does not make it any more valid as an amendment.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend may recollect that I was a member of the GLC. Therefore, I am most interested in his contribution. Will he reply to some of the points that I made from my experience? He rightly dealt with car parking. He may not be aware of it, but there are two car parks at county hall. That belonging to the members holds only about 15 cars. That is a difficult problem.
My hon. Friend may also not be aware, as he has not been a member of county hall, that the chamber there is somewhat small and could not hold 168 members. That might entail some difficulties in refurbishing the chamber.
Will my hon. Friend also comment on the point that members of the GLC have to put in a lot of time? As an experienced borough councillor, will he elaborate on whether borough councillors will have time to meet that commitment?

Mr. Tracey: I must apologise to my hon. Friend, because earlier in my speech I dealt with the points that he has raised. I believe that he was delayed elsewhere and was unable to join us. He was with us for much of the night when, unfortunately, we lacked the wisdom of all but three Opposition Members who chose, despite what they are telling us about their interest in the government of London, to go home to bed, leaving the Liberal and Social Democratic parties to deal with their amendments.

Mr. Couchman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the thrust of the lengthy speech by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was to offer the possibility of choosing the interim administration at county hall by a form of proportional representation?

Mr. Tracey: You will appreciate,
Mr. Forrester, that if I were to start dealing with the advantages and disadvantages of what is called proportional representation, and the many different systems that seem to exist, I could be here for the rest of this afternoon and evening. I would rather not deal with that issue.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary could give some guidance, but I have been intrigued to hear, during all the discussions of the interim council, that the council of the City of London seems to lack representation. That is important, because the City is a bastion of our heritage and history. I have great feeling for it, as I know other hon. Members do. It is a matter which we might possibly explore.

Mr. Tony Banks: I disagree with most of what the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) has said about the GLC. I will, however, pay him credit for the attention that he has given to the subject during the night. I noticed him from time to time deep in meditation, no doubt to great purpose. He made some useful contributions to the debate.
I find myself agreeing with the hon. Gentleman that the amendment is unacceptable on a major principle. It is unacceptable because the concept of the interim council is one of the appointed member rather than the directly elected member. That makes the amendment unacceptable in principle.
Juggling with numbers and shifting them up a few does not make the amendment any more acceptable, because it

does not alter the principle in any way. We wish to oppose the amendment, but, at the same time, some points must be made about the proposal with regard to numbers. I have regarded the amendment as a back door attempt by the Liberal-SDP alliance to obtain a few extra seats on this undemocratic body. There is a good chance that many members of my party serving on borough councils will refuse to serve on the interim council. I cannot see why a decent, directly elected Labour councillor would want to become the poodle of a Tory Government, being given a diktat from Marsham street and being told to go away and be a good boy or girl and do exactly what nanny says. I should have thought that that proposition was wholly unacceptable. It would be to me as a borough councillor, as I have been in the past, and as a GLC member, as I am at present.
With some assistance from the cavalry that have come refreshed galloping to his assistance, the hon. Member for Surbiton raised some points about the problems involved in accommodating 168 members of this indirectly elected body at county hall. The county hall chamber could accommodate 168 people. It tends to be somewhat more fully used on a council day than this Chamber is used on an average parliamentary day except when something of great fun and excitement is taking place, so that hon. Members can come in and play silly games. As I said earlier, 168 people could be accommodated adequately in more comfortable conditions than we have in this Chamber.
Whether or not 168 people could do an adequate job is another matter. For the moment we will set aside our objection in principle to having them there anyway. Let us assume that they are there and that they have 11 months in which to do a job. Anyone with experience of local authorities knows that it takes new members—most of these people will be new members—a considerable time to settle down and find their way around. I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee had the same problem when they were first elected as Members of Parliament. These 168 new members in county hall will have a problem just finding their way around, getting to know which officers they should talk to, what they should talk about, how to find committee rooms and how to carry out business. It will take the whole 11 months for the new members to settle in.
We do not know how long the interim body will last. There is nothing in the Bill to specify how long it may be in operation. If the Secretary of State so wished, it might remain in being for three or four or more years, and then no doubt the 168 councillors from the boroughs would know their way around and could start making the right contacts and putting in a useful effort.
Would the 168 new members from the borough councils have time enough to do this sort of job? After all, they would have been elected to borough councils, and in those circumstances they would not expect to find themselves suddenly projected into county hall to take on many responsibilities, with daytime meetings which take up a lot of time and require a great deal of assiduous attention on the part of members. I do not think that they could do it.

Mr. Pavitt: In view of the responsibilities that the 168 members would have, what does my hon. Friend think of the suggestion that perhaps the London borough elections


might be brought forward to enable the new members of the borough councils to tackle these problems rather than be in office for only a short time?

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend has touched on another problem. Personally, I do not want anything that improves the Bill. In my view, the only way in which the Bill could be improved would be by setting fire to it or by putting it into a useful repository about the person of the Secretary of State. I do not think that amendments such as this could improve the Bill.
I take the point that my hon. Friend has made. If the interim body remained in being for longer than 11 months, we would have the borough council elections in London, which are due to be held in 1986. That would mean that a new set of people would come on to the interim body, because it has been stated clearly that only the borough councils in London could appoint members of the interim body.
The time available to borough councillors to serve on the borough council, on the GLC and also to have a job is important. Unlike hon. Members, who are lucky enough to receive a munificent salary, thanks to generous taxpayers, most members of the GLC, and the overwhelming majory of borough councillors, receive nothing other than a small attendance allowance.
The hon. Member for Surbition raised a point about the number of full-time councillors on the GLC. It is not very many. At the same time, the responsibility of chairing a major committee of the GLC with a budget of £300 million or £400 million, as is the case with the transport committee, the arts committee with a budget of £50 million, or the planning committee with a budget running into hundreds of millions of pounds, requires the full-time services of the councillor.
I believe that we have missed a great opportunity. We should have moved to having full-time councillors, as happens in many other European countries. I believe that the responsibilities justify this and that someone who works full-time in a job is in a better position to represent the members and to preserve their interests than someone who has to try to combine a number of functions and a number of jobs.
I know that a number of Conservative Members manage to do a very nice job in moonlighting by having positions as Members of Parliament and then going off to their consultancies and to the law courts to earn generous additions to their salaries. Unfortunately, that is not given to most borough councillors or to GLC members.
The hon. Member for Surbition was attempting to pluck a sum out of the air for Mr. Livingstone's remuneration as a full-time officer. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Livingstone receives from county hall a large and generous sum of £7,000 a year for being leader of the GLC, which is the largest local authority in Europe, with a budget approaching £3,000 million. Whatever hon. Members may think of Mr. Livingstone's politics or his personality, I am sure they would feel that, for his talents, he is grossly underpaid and under-rewarded. Perhaps we should do something about this by voting him a large sum of money so that he can continue to represent the members of the GLC and the people of London in the fine and fitting way that he now does. However, not many members of the GLC work full-time, and there should be more, because of the responsibilities that they have to carry.
I return to the point that the borough councillors who will be pushed into running county hall after May 1985 will not have the experience of running a large authority such as the GLC, many of them will not have the knowledge, and many of them may not have the inclination to do it. However, like many people in local government, they volunteer their services, and regret at leisure that they volunteered. Many problems will be involved for such members.
After the hon. Member for Surbiton had talked about the size of county hall chamber and whether it would accommodate 168 people, he referred to the car park. Indeed, as one of his hon. Friends pointed out, there are two car parks. There is a members' car park, and there is a much larger public car park. At the time that the "Fares Fair" policy was being operated very successfully by the GLC, the amount of private road usage in London dropped dramatically and, indeed, the demands on the GLC car parks similarly dropped. That is a good lesson for the future.
If we establish a proper transport policy for London, such as the GLC has been pioneering—although this is to be taken away from the GLC—there will be ample room in the GLC car park for the 168 members. However, I hope that the 168 members will all acquire travel passes to allow them to use the tube and the bus, so that they will not wish to bring their cars to county hall—if, indeed, they are lucky enough to have cars. In that way they will have no need to use the spaces. Therefore, I do not think that car parking will pose much of a problem.
The hon. Gentleman then referred to the restaurant—cars, food and such matters are dear to Conservative Members. The food at county hall is very good. Its quality is certainly as good as that in the House of Commons. The company there is possibly what is best, because the company at county hall is much more pleasant than that in the House of Commons, although, of course, Mr. Forrester, I do not include you in that stricture. It would be difficult to accommodate 168 people if they all chose to come to lunch at the same time. Dinners are not served at county hall. That will disappoint many Conservative Members who look forward to an excellent dinner most evenings.
3 pm
Those problems could, I suppose, be overcome with a little good will and by knocking down a few walls and putting a few more desks here and there. I regret to see the hon. Member for Surbiton leaving the Committee, because I like to see his friendly face opposite and hear his sotto voce comments. Perhaps he will permit me to give a resume of my remarks when he returns.
Thinking of the office accommodation at county hall, I believe that 168 people could probably be accommodated. There are some good offices there. Perhaps that is why, considering the devious mind of the Secretary of State, he wants to get rid of the GLC. There is great pressure on accommodation in the Palace of Westminster for hon. Members, who rightly demand the services and facilities needed by anybody wishing properly to serve his or her constituents.
From this building one can look across the bridge to the messages which appear from time to time on the county hall building. Such messages proclaim how many


Londoners are unemployed because of Tory policies, or beg hon. Members not to scrap the elections because the vast majority of Londoners want them kept.
When members of the Government look at the building they probably think that it would be a nice place to go. "We could get some good offices there," is a thought that is probably at the back of the Secretary of State's mind. I have a room in county hall and I am happy to stay there. If the Secretary of State takes the building over for parliamentary offices, perhaps he will permit me to remain in room 174, where I spend some happy and productive hours on behalf of the GLC.
I recall that when speaking to a Conservative association meeting some time ago the Secretary of State suggested that perhaps county hall could be turned into a hotel. Indeed, I understand that he favoured the idea of a competition to discover what the place should be used for in the event of the GLC being abolished. Perhaps when he replies to this debate, as I hope he will, he will inform us of the ideas that he has for county hall. I have been asking him on a regular basis if he has thoughts on the subject, but so far he has declined to reply.
Does the right hon. Gentleman have it in mind, for example, to sell county hall to Trusthouse Forte PLC, a good friend of the Conservative party? A pamphlet was written in 1892—I shall read extracts from it if hon. Members wish—in which it was suggested that county hall should be turned into a hotel to be patronised largely by wealthy American tourists.
As I said, I am sure that 168 people could be accommodated there. Nevertheless, the point remains one of principle. Whether we have 82, 168, 10 or whatever the number turns out to be — when, perhaps, Labour members refuse to serve—the principle remains and the amendment does nothing to change it. That principle is that a directly elected local authority, which is at present controlled by the Labour party, is to be replaced by an appointed body on which the majority of members—whatever combination is used, the Secretary of State's combination or the Liberal amendment combination—will be Conservatives.
That is the essence of this legislation. That is the great gerrymander. Indeed, the GLC was conceived in a gerrymander by the Government of the day in 1963. Today we are witnessing a further gerrymander to change its political complexion. The Secretary of State has been widely condemned by many of the senior Members of the Conservative party for imposing such a gerrymander on the people of London. The cry, "Let the people of London decide at the ballot box in 1985" will remain the call that goes up from the Labour party and the rallying point for Londoners as we oppose the Bill line by line, whether it is debated in the House of Commons or the other place, and when we see the subsequent legislation.
I am opposed to the principles behind the measures. The attempt by the Liberal-SDP alliance to get a few seats by the back door will not do, and therefore cannot be supported by the Labour party.
The hon. Member for Surbiton—I regret that he has left the Chamber—mentioned the City of London. It is interesting that the City of London retains its ancient rights and privileges in all the legislation. I shall always remember a statement in the Herbert Commission report. Herbert said that logic has its limits and the City of London

lies outside it. In logical terms the City of London is illogical, and in local government terms it is totally undemocratic. I am sure that the hon. Member for Surbiton has great feelings for the City of London, but it is another undemocratic body, just as the interim council will be undemocratic. Undemocratic bodies have the right to appeal to Conservative Members.

Mr. Corbyn: Is the amendment being so assiduously pressed by the Liberal party in order to gain a few seats for the Liberals, supported by the Liberal and SDP members of the GLC, or are they too appalled at the prospect of the denial of elected representatives in London?

Mr. Banks: I do not wish to intrude into private grief, either in the SDP alliance in the Committee and in county hall or in the Conservative party in the Committee and in county hall. The Labour party is the only party totally united in both places in opposition to this measure, and we are consistent in that respect. I know that the alliance in county hall is opposed to the idea of an appointed council. I do not know whether it wishes to support the amendment in an attempt to improve the unimprovable.
A point of principle must remain throughout the debate. We cannot accept the amendment, because it will do nothing to improve the undemocratic nature of the central proposal. Nothing can alter that fact, and therefore the Labour party cannot support the amendment.

Mr. Straw: This is the first occasion on which I have spoken in Committee since I moved the motion to report progress about an hour and 15 minutes ago in an attempt to save the business that was to be considered this afternoon. I hope that the Liberal party has learnt its lesson by its stupid antics today. Far from delaying this odious, vile and anti-democratic Bill, the Liberals have managed to achieve the bringing forward by one day the likely approval of the House of Commons to the Bill. I hope that people up and down the country—I include Portsmouth — understand that the Liberals are not serious about their politics and addressing themselves to the issue.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No, I shall not give way. The Liberals are not serious about their politics and addressing themselves to the issue. They are not serious about the preservation of jobs in Bathgate and Leeds or in the manufacture of Jaguar cars in Coventry. They are not serious about the fact that the Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill was due to be debated on the Floor of the House tonight. Many contracts were dependent on that legislation, and, consequently—

Mr. Ashdown: Is the hon. Gentleman not portraying the weaknesses of his argument by not giving way?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman has had sufficient opportunities in the debate so far to air his views.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Forrester): Order. I hope that the hon. Member will return to the amendment.

Mr. Straw: The Committee and the country will have learned from the debate that the Liberals are so incompetent that, when they get down to what they see as procedural tricks to delay Government business, they shoot into their feet. Rather than delay Government business, they advance it by one day. Let this go down in


the history of the procedure of the House of Commons, and let this be a lesson to the novices on the Opposition Bench below the Gangway, that sometimes we have to think about the consequences of our actions. The Liberals thought that their actions would delay the Bill until after the recess, but they have brought the Bill forward by one day.
I shall take your advice, Mr. Forrester, and return to the item under discussion, which is amendment No. 129, moved by the alliance. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on his assiduity, and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), with whom I had an interesting conversation earlier this morning about the problems caused by the intersection of Finsbury Park by three ward boundaries. They have eloquently made the main points against the amendment.
The key point is that we object lock, stock and barrel to the proposals in the Bill because of their anti-democratic nature. We also have a duty to examine, line by line, what the Government propose. I say that without giving approval to the interim council for the GLC, which is to take the place of elected councillors, by which device control of the GLC is to be changed. A Hobson's choice is offered by the alliance. It is more consistent with the scheme of the Bill to tie the number of persons to be nominated by each borough to the number of councillors represented on the GLC. I hope that when we debate amendment No. 126, the Government will accept that point, and the amendment.
It was not necessary, even within the scheme of the Bill, for the Government so to arrange things that political control of the GLC was switched when they introduced the interim council. I hope and trust that they addressed themselves to that point before they proposed the Bill. It was open to the Government to write into the legislation that the political complexion of the nominated councillors who were to replace the elected councillors for each borough should be the same at that of the elected councillors whom they replaced. For example, I believe that Westminster has two Conservative members on the GLC. The council would be required to nominate two Conservatives, which would preserve the present political balance, at least avoiding the charge that the Government were gerrymandering the successor body to the elected GLC and switching political control in that way.
Amendment No. 129 would double the size of council. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West said that that would place great burdens on the appointing councils and lead to other unacceptable consequences. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am glad that at last we are able to return to the debate on the amendment. I moved the amendment this morning because if we have to accept this appalling Bill it is better for it to be altered than unaltered. For that reason, since 5.15 yesterday afternoon, and in previous Committee sittings my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have insisted on opposing the Bill and all its clauses. We are seeking to amend it so that we have the best possible alternative if we do not succeed in defeating it. We continue to try to amend it, irrespective of how many hon. Members from other parties stay to support us.
We shall continue. We are no more bowed now than we were in the early hours of this morning. We shall

oppose the Bill root and branch until it is not possible to oppose it further. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has heard that from us day in and day out. The Bill is unconstitutional and anti-democratic. It is totally unacceptable to those who believe in elected local government.
Knowing what is possible as we consider each amendment and each clause, we tabled amendments at each stage to try to improve the Bill. We are discussing such an amendment now. It does not deal with our fundamental and substantial objections to the bill. It could never do that. We cannot expect authorities to serve the public as well when they are no longer directly elected. The schedule provides for indirect nomination for a year. If we are forced reluctantly to accept a nominated authority we want that body to have the best possible chance of representing the people whom the present GLC directly elected councillors represent.
The amendment doubles the size of membership. I hope that I made my reasons clear this morning. The greater the number of councillors nominated, the more accurately they can reflect the balance of parties in the boroughs. That is the Government's intention and, if we are forced to accept the proposal, that is our wish.
The amendment would make more possible a sharing of the work load among those doing the job of running the Greater London council in 1985–86. They will serve only 11 months, but they will also serve on their own councils. They are more likely to do a good job if there are more of them.
If a larger number of people run the GLC the minorities stand a better chance of being represented. The female element in our society would stand a better chance of being represented.
If we have to have a non-directly accountable body for one year it is important that: as many people as possible, within the realms of practicality, take on that responsibility.
It comes ill from those who either have not travelled with us through the dark hours of last night opposing the Government, or those who are not determined, and we are determined, to oppose the Bill to the end, to criticise our actions in seeking to ensure that we go to the end in our attempts to improve the Bill on behalf of all those whom we represent. I represent almost 500,000 Londoners, and my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, (Mr. Cartwright) represents just under 500,000 people who voted for his party. On behalf of the people who supported our parties, we are determined to ensure that the arguments are firmly and directly put.
Unlike other parties, we have consistently advocated regional government for London. Unlike the Labour party —which, a few years ago, wanted to abolish the GLC but has now changed its tune, and I compliment it and welcome its support—and unlike the Secretary of State who was gracious enough to admit that in our debates on similar subjects a few years ago he took the contrary view, that the GLC should be expanded, but has now changed his mind, we have been consistent because we believe in regional government. If we must have that regional government for one year in hands that are not directly elected, the best course would be to follow the proposals in the amendment.
The Minister is right to say that the balance we must seek to strike is that between equity and efficiency. We are seeking democracy. In the balance between equity and


efficiency, between fairness and the simple mercenary monetarist approach to local government, we shall come down every time on the side of equity because equity is nearer to democracy than is the Government's model of efficiency.
While not accepting for a moment that the amendment will do any more than marginally improve a thoroughly undesirable Bill — which we have opposed from the beginning and shall oppose to the end — I ask the Committee to support the amendment to ensure that it, at least, is passed in spite of the Government's opposition.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. I seek your guidance. I want to say a word about the provincial metropolitan counties. Do I speak to that now or on a later amendment?

The First Deputy Chairman: That is a matter for the next amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 381.

Division No. 332]
[3.23 pm


AYES


Beith, A. J.
Penhaligon, David


Bruce, Malcolm
Wainwright, R.


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Wallace, James


Howells, Geraint
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Kennedy, Charles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maclennan, Robert
Mr. Paddy Ashdown and


Meadowcroft, Michael
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Caborn, Richard


Adley, Robert
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Alexander, Richard
Campbell, Ian


Amess, David
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Anderson, Donald
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Arnold, Tom
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Ashton, Joe
Cash, William


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bellingham, Henry
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bendall, Vivian
Clarke, Thomas


Benn, Tony
Clay, Robert


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cohen, Harry


Berry, Sir Anthony
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Best, Keith
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Simon


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Cope, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Corbett, Robin


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Corrie, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Couchman, James


Braine, Sir Bernard
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Craigen, J. M.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Crouch, David


Bright, Graham
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brinton, Tim
Cunningham, Dr John


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Dalyell, Tam


Bruinvels, Peter
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Deakins, Eric


Buchan, Norman
Dickens, Geoffrey


Buck, Sir Antony
Dicks, Terry


Butterfill, John
Dixon, Donald





Dobson, Frank
Howell, Ralph (TV Norfolk)


Dormand, Jack
Hoyle, Douglas


Dorrell, Stephen
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Douglas, Dick
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Dubs, Alfred
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Hunter, Andrew


Eastham, Ken
Irving, Charles


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mp'n SE)
Janner, Hon Greville


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Eggar, Tim
John, Brynmor


Emery, Sir Peter
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Ewing, Harry
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Farr, John
Key, Robert


Fatchett, Derek
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Favell, Anthony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Flannery, Martin
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Knowles, Michael


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lambie, David


Forman, Nigel
Lamond, James


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lamont, Norman


Foster, Derek
Lang, Ian


Foulkes, George
Latham, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lawler, Geoffrey


Franks, Cecil
Lawrence, Ivan


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Freeman, Roger
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Gale, Roger
Leighton, Ronald


Galley, Roy
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Garrett, W. E.
Lightbown, David


George, Bruce
Lilley, Peter


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Godman, Dr Norman
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Golding, John
Lord, Michael


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Loyden, Edward


Goodlad, Alastair
Luce, Richard


Gow, Ian
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Greenway, Harry
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Gregory, Conal
MacGregor, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Grist, Ian
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Grylls, Michael
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
McKelvey, William


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Hampson, Dr Keith
Maclean, David John


Hanley, Jeremy
McNamara, Kevin


Hannam,John
McWilliam, John


Harman, Ms Harriet
Madden, Max


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Madel, David


Harvey, Robert
Maginnis, Ken


Haselhurst, Alan
Major, John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Malone, Gerald


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Maples, John


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Marek, Dr John


Hayes, J.
Marland, Paul


Haynes, Frank
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Henderson, Barry
Mates, Michael


Hill, James
Mather, Carol


Hind, Kenneth
Maude, Hon Francis


Hirst, Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Meacher, Michael


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Mellor, David


Holt, Richard
Michie, William


Hooson, Tom
Mikardo, Ian


Hordern, Peter
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Howard, Michael
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)






Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Moate, Roger
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Monro, Sir Hector
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Moore, John
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Speller, Tony


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spencer, Derek


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Squire, Robin


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stanley, John


Neale, Gerrard
Stern, Michael


Needham, Richard
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Nellist, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Newton, Tony
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stokes, John


Nicholson, J.
Stott, Roger


O'Brien, William
Strang, Gavin


O'Neill, Martin
Straw, Jack


Oppenheim, Philip
Sumberg, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Page, John (Harrow W)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Terlezki, Stefan


Park, George
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Parris, Matthew
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Parry, Robert
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Patchett, Terry
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Pavitt, Laurie
Thornton, Malcolm


Pawsey, James
Thurnham, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tinn, James


Pendry, Tom
Torney, Tom


Pike, Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pollock, Alexander
Tracey, Richard


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Trippier, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Powley, John
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Price, Sir David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Proctor, K. Harvey
Viggers, Peter


Radice, Giles
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Raffan, Keith
Waldegrave, Hon William


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walden, George


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Renton, Tim
Waller, Gary


Rhodes James, Robert
Ward, John


Richardson, Ms Jo
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Wareing, Robert


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Warren, Kenneth


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Watts, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Weetch, Ken


Rost, Peter
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Rowe, Andrew
Wheeler, John


Rowlands, Ted
White, James


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Whitfield, John


Ryder, Richard
Whitney, Raymond


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wigley, Dafydd


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wilkinson, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Winterton, Nicholas


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Woodcock, Michael


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Yeo, Tim


Shersby, Michael
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)



Short, Mrs R. (W'hampt'n NE)
Tellers for the Noes:


Silvester, Fred
Mr. David Hunt and


Sims, Roger
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 126, in page 10, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of page 11 and add—



'PART II
GREATER MANCHESTER


Metropolitan District
Number of Metropolitan County Councillors


Bolton
10


Bury
6


Manchester
20


Oldham
9


Rochdale
7


Salford
12


Stockport
11


Tameside
9


Trafford
9


Wigan
13




PART III
MERSEYSIDE


Metropolitan District
Number of Metropolitan County Councillors


Knowsley
11


Liverpool
36


St. Helens
11


Sefton
19


Wirral
22




PART IV
SOUTH YORKSHIRE


Metropolitan District
Number of Metropolitan County Councillors


Barnsley
19


Doncaster
20


Rotherham
18


Sheffield
43




PART V
TYNE AND WEAR


Metropolitan District
Number of Metropolitan County Councillors


Gateshead
19


Newcastle-upon-Tyne
25


North Tyneside
18


South Tyneside
15


Sunderland
27




PART VI
WEST MIDLANDS


Metropolitan District
Number of Metropolitan County Councillors


Birmingham
42


Coventry
12


Dudley
11


Sandwell
12


Solihull
7


Walsall
10


Wolverhampton
10




PART VII
WEST YORKSHIRE


Metropolitan District
Number of Metropolitan County Councillors


Bradford
19


Calderdale
9






Metropolitan District
Number of Metropolitan County Councillors


Kirklees
15


Leeds
32


Wakefield
13


I am glad that the Committee has shown some sense, as reflected in the results of the last Division. Exactly the same number of councillors will be nominated for the Greater London council as are now directly elected to it. Although we object root and branch to the Bill, at least the number of councillors on the successor board is consistent. It will therefore be easier for committees to operate.
Although there is consistency in terms of numbers, there is no consistency in regard to the nomination of successor councillors. When I first considered the transitional size of metropolitan councils, I expected the scheme that had been followed with the GLC to be followed in the metropolitan counties. My right hon. and hon. Friends who are concerned with metropolitan counties discovered, however, that representation on them is not tied to the number of elected county councillors in, for example, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Tyne and Wear, but has been plucked out of the air. In most cases, representation has been halved.
We do not understand why the Government have done that, unless they have been tempted to write in crude devices to gerrymander the Bill and fix political control. There was a prospect of the Government indulging in jiggery-pokery and fixing control of the GLC by fiat, but they might also be able to change the control of the West Midlands and, possibly, the Greater Manchester councils by fiat.
Now, as a result of the clearest vote of confidence that Labour received in local elections in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas, there is no prospect of control of the transitional councils outside London changing as they would have changed if the Bill had been passed before the elections on 3 May. The nature of the party balance within the transitional councils will, however, be altered. In most cases, Labour had a substantial majority in the existing county councils. The proposals in schedule 1 and elsewhere mean that the balance of the parties will become much narrower. That, too, constitutes gerrymandering because it will affect the balance on committees and possibly the outcome of crucial votes in the councils themselves.
The only argument that the Government have advanced, as I understand it—I have not seen it myself — is very thin indeed. It is that there should be an arbitrary reduction of 50 per cent. in county council membership because during the 11 months in which the transitional councils will exist they will not have to prepare budgets as these will have been prepared by the outgoing elected councils. That may be true, but it applies equally to the GLC. Yet the Government have provided that the number of nominated representatives from the London boroughs should be exactly the number of elected GLC councillors. Moreover, although the transitional councils will not have to prepare budgets the Government's argument ignores the fact that work loads are likely to be greatly increased in preparing for the changeover and the devolution of services to boroughs, districts and joint

boards. These bodies will also be greatly affected by the most serious loss of morale and efficiency flowing from the outrageous proposals elsewhere in the Bill.
Voter for voter, as it were, the metropolitan counties have more councillors than the GLC. The Minister may, of course, say that as each GLC councillor or nominated person will represent about 66,000 electors the same should apply to the metropolitan counties. That, however, ignores the fact that the councils are geared up to their present membership, as is the work load and the pressure on members. The whole committee structure of Greater Manchester, Tyne and Wear, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, the West Midlands and Merseyside council's plainly depends on the existing number of councillors. If the Government reduce the number of councillors by half, as the Bill proposes, they will add further unnecessary disruption to what is already a most unnecessary and disruptive piece of legislation.
Above all, the Government have been unable to deny the charge of gerrymandering. The Bill should not be called the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill but the "Local Government (Gerrymandering) Bill" because that is its only purpose and intent. It is a disgraceful piece of legislation which will be to the eternal shame of the Ministers in charge of it. They could at least make their desire and intent less obvious and provide some respectability for what they are doing. They intend to destroy the councils. If during the transitional period they intend to disrupt the lives of the staff who work for those councils and the services on which people in the area depend, the least that they can do is to reduce the disruption to a minimum and ensure that the councils continue with the present number of representatives, albeit from the boroughs.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: We have heard a great deal about London and the Greater London council, but not very much about the provinces. I should like briefly to try to correct that and to declare that I address the Committee as a former leader of the West Midlands county council. Indeed, I think that I may be the only Member of the House who has been the leader of a provincial metropolitan county council. I am still a member, and that is something that I have in common with the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), but it may well be that that is the only thing that I have in common with him.
I speak with some sensitivity on the questions before the Committee because my constituency, Solihull, is in the very midst of the West Midlands county council, and my constituents are greatly affected by the legislation that is now nearing the statute book.
It is worth noting—I do not recall the point having been made — that the provincial metropolitan county authorities have far more competences than the GLC, and dismantling them if the legislation goes to the statute book — may be a more complex affair. In addition to the GLC responsibilities relating to transport, highways, waste disposal, fire and so on, the West Midlands county council is an airport authority and a police authority, and has in general a wider range of functions than the GLC. It is against that background that I should like respectfully to make some points to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and perhaps, via him, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
If the legislation proceeds, will my hon. Friend please look favourably on the question of privatising Birmingham airport? Will he please remember the position of Solihull in the scheme of things? It is the smallest borough in the west midlands, and in some senses it is the most vulnerable. It is the intersection of a major motorway network and its environment already contains the airport, the National Exhibition Centre, and the principal railway station south of Birmingham. It has experienced rapid growth, and also green belt anxieties. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the position of Solihull will be very much borne in mind?
May it also be noted—and, if it is not too late, even reconsidered—that Solihull is set to have the smallest number of representatives on the interim authority? Will my hon. Friend also please bear in mind how many of the neighbouring authorities around Birmingham have reason to be anxious to retain a sturdy independence? Will he also take a caution from me that the arguments about the joint boards—which seem to be at the very centre of the intended structure —can, if they are not handled with great skill, become institutionalised? We should be aware of that.
Will my hon. Friend please be very careful on the subject of waste disposal? I have a feeling that, as some of the boroughs go back to being net importers of waste —and some of them net exporters of waste—there will be considerable quarrelling at the margin and also considerable political ideology.
Since other hon. Members have alluded to it, perhaps I may conclude by saying that my experience of sitting all through last night was that the Liberals acquitted themselves rather sturdily, whereas the Labour party's performance was somewhat undistinguished.
Finally, I hope that the Government will retain their sensitivity on all these matters—there are some very difficult questions among the legislative proposals—all the way to the statute book.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) posed a question in the middle of his remarks. He said, "If the legislation proceeds" — and went on to hope that the Minister would take the point that he was making into account. Even as we come to the end of this long Committee stage there is still a question whether the legislation will proceed.
As debates proceed through the night, salutary lessons are learned by all. So begins the understanding of many Conservative Members who troop through the Lobby with a certain amount of misgiving. In my experience, the shortage or absence of sleep increases such misgivings. I hope that they will come to ask the most important question of all—why was such a major constitutional change made with so little consultation in so short a time?
I am worried that so much of the Bill was clearly designed for London. I do not claim to be knowledgeable about the affairs of the GLC, but I do know something about the Greater Manchester council which is faced with a Bill that was clearly designed without regard to the particular problems that we have in our area.
The Greater Manchester council is a good council. I shall not go into the merits of the GLC but I do know that the Greater Manchester council is good. I know the arguments that led up to its creation; arguments that went on for 20 or more years and in which I was involved in the

late 1950s. I argued the case for a large authority such as the Greater Manchester council against the wishes of many people in various political parties.
Greater Manchester grew from a small town, the centre of the commercial aspects of so much of the industry around it. It had a centre and several towns were based upon it, although they remained independent of it. The only valid solution was a body such as the Greater Manchester council. Of course, there were arguments about the kind of powers that it should have. I should have preferred to have seen education in the province of the Greater Manchester council but that is another matter. That could have changed over a period of time or I might have been convinced as to the value of what eventually happened.
The amendment changes the composition of the joint boards — a 50 per cent. reduction. If they are to be reduced one must ask what the county councillors do. I am not knowledgeable about what they do elsewhere but I do know what they do in Tameside and many other parts of Greater Manchester. They work hard. They are made up of people who know their areas. If one walks round with them during an election one becomes convinced that they know their areas and their people. They do not have a sinecure. They work hard and keep the communities together. People in my area such as George James, Mike Custance and Bert Davies are people of substance and merit. They have worked hard for their community over many years and are held in great respect. The fact that they are in this tier on the local authority does not mean that they failed to obtain seats elsewhere but that they felt that this was a most important task.
Dismissing them in this way is wholly wrong. Shamefully, the Minister did not take into account the work that such people do and the value of their work to the people. They have regular advice bureaux just like any of the district councils. They are well attended and integrated into the community. The Minister utterly failed —he could not have done other than fail with so little consultation — to appreciate the kind of people and arrangements with which he was dealing. Therefore, he stands condemned.
The virtue of a lengthy Committee stage is that the Committee becomes aware that the Government stand condemned for all that they are doing in this delicate area where people who represent others bring their views and understanding to bear on the subject of the GMC.
This proposal is wholly wrong and I hope that by a vote this afternoon we shall show the Government that they are wrong in this as in so much else of the Bill.

Mr. Gary Waller: In contrast to the Opposition amendment, I believe that the figure given for the number of representatives from the districts to the transitional authorities is about right for a number of reasons. I had a certain amount of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said about the difficulty of obtaining fair representation in Greater London on the transitional authority bearing in mind that we were talking about two, three or four representatives.
As regards the metropolitan districts, one is talking about at least nine or 10 representatives from each district, and it therefore becomes easier to achieve fairness and adequate representation from each of the districts. The proposal seems to pass the acid test.
If one were to increase the numbers provided by the Bill, one would find difficulty in discovering sufficient people who were not already fully occupied within their districts to serve on the transitional authorities during the critical period. It would be difficult to find people who have the necessary expertise and experience, bearing in mind that in a district such as Leeds we already require 16 people willing to give up a great deal of their time to look after metropolitan county responsibilities in addition to their county responsibilities.
If one were to double that figure and ask for 32 people from each district, such as Leeds, it would be an impossible burden to impose on that authority, and the people of that area would suffer. That would be so also with other districts in West Yorkshire, such as Bradford, Wakefield, Kirkless and Calderdale. It is important to remember that there are hung councils in many of those areas—for example, Bradford and Calderdale. It would make life difficult to ask for more representatives for those district councils and would bring the work of those authorities to a halt.
It is clear, as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, that the people in the metropolitan areas will have more representatives than people in the GLC area during the transitional period. Greater London is a much bigger area. I believe that for the relatively lighter responsibilities of the metropolitan county councils, the numbers provided in the Bill are about right. That is why I support my right hon. and hon. Friends' figures and reject the amendment.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I support the amendment, because it seems to deal logically with the numbers. It reinstates the exact numbers of people who served on the county councils. Presumably, when those figures were fixed by the boundary commission and passed by the House, they were assumed to be appropriate to run a large and complex body.
I listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). He seemed to argue in favour of retaining the existing numbers of councillors rather than for the suggested numbers. If he says that it is difficult for, say, Leeds city council to put forward such a high number as 32 to play its part in the running of the county council for that year, he is saying, in effect, that roughly half the number who will come forward from each authority in west Yorkshire must take on double the burden. I should have thought that it was just as easy to expect people to share the burden at a lower intensity over the year than for half the number to do twice the amount of work.
4 pm
As someone who has served on a county council, I think it is unfair to limit the opportunity to serve to those few who may be able, by reason of their occupation, to spend a vast amount of time away from their work, whatever it may be. Spreading the load seems to be the best way to carry out the duties.
I took note also of the comments of the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). I am glad that consideration is being given to the best way to cope with the transition, if the train principles of the Bill become law. The proposals in the amendment appear to have good logic behind them. Therefore, my hon. Friends and I will support it.

Mr. Waldegrave: We have returned to a rational and quiet debate after the shenanigans of the last 12 hours. Some of us at least are grateful. When one has been in the Chamber for 24 hours, the yammering sometimes becomes too much. I shall not apportion blame, but there was quite a lot of noise. It is nice to return to the quiet and measured tones that we have just had.
With respect to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), to whom we always listen with great attention on these matters, however many inquiries we had on such a matter, Ministers would still have to make a judgment. There are several constraints. We do not want the transitional councils to be too big, because they will not exist for more than 11 months. We want them to get the feeling of working together as a team without being too big or unwieldy. On the other hand, they must be able to fulfil the duties being laid on them, principally the reorganisation and handing down of functions to lower tier authorities.
There is a constraint on the other side, which was brought out wisely by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) — that we must always pay attention to not laying too great a burden on the lower tier authorities in terms of finding people with the relevant experience, capacity and time to do the job properly.
Ministers had to take a view, having regard to the conflicting constraints. Obviously we could not follow the GLC formula in the metropolitan counties because the parliamentary constituencies cross metropolitan district boundaries, and it would be difficult to allocate transitional council seats in those cases. The formula would not work exactly as it would for the GLC. We came to the conclusion—and this is a judgment for which Ministers must stand accountable to Parliament—that we should not overload the lower tier authorities; in particular, that we should try to have a council small enough to get to work quickly and to enable members to get to know each other. That meant that we should diminish the size of the present councils.
My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) made a speech full of pregnant meaning to those who know of his care and interest in the matter. He did not mention Walsall when he was talking about waste disposal, but I felt that there were other matters upon which we shall hear from him when we debate the main Bill. I assure him that, unlike Mary Tudor, my right hon. Friend has the word "Solihull" written on his heart, and there is no question but that we shall remember that important borough.
I listened to the arguments of the hon. Members for maintaining councils at their present size. Ministers, by the same route of argument, came to the same conclusion as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. For the same reasons that he did, I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. Fraser: We disagree with the Minister, and would like to divide on the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 154, Noes 243.

Division No. 333]
[4.04 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)


Anderson, Donald
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Barron, Kevin


Ashdown, Paddy
Beith, A. J.


Ashton, Joe
Benn, Tony






Bermingham, Gerald
Lambie, David


Blair, Anthony
Lamond, James


Boyes, Roland
Leighton, Ronald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Loyden, Edward


Bruce, Malcolm
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Buchan, Norman
McKelvey, William


Caborn, Richard
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell, Ian
McNamara, Kevin


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McWilliam, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Madden, Max


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Marek, Dr John


Clarke, Thomas
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clay, Robert
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cohen, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Michie, William


Corbett, Robin
Mikardo, Ian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Craigen, J. M.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cunningham, Dr John
Nellist, David


Dalyell, Tam
O'Brien, William


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
O'Neill, Martin


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Deakins, Eric
Park, George


Dewar, Donald
Parry, Robert


Dobson, Frank
Patchett, Terry


Dormand, Jack
Pavitt, Laurie


Douglas, Dick
Pendry, Tom


Dubs, Alfred
Penhaligon, David


Duffy, A. E. P.
Pike, Peter


Eastham, Ken
Radice, Giles


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Redmond, M.


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Ewing, Harry
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fatchett, Derek
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Robertson, George


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Flannery, Martin
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Foster, Derek
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Foulkes, George
Skinner, Dennis


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Garrett, W. E.
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


George, Bruce
Soley, Clive


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Stott, Roger


Godman, Dr Norman
Strang, Gavin


Golding, John
Straw, Jack


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Tinn, James


Haynes, Frank
Torney, Tom


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Wainwright, R.


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Wallace, James


Howells, Geraint
Wareing, Robert


Hoyle, Douglas
Weetch, Ken


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
White, James


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Wigley, Dafydd


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Winnick, David


Janner, Hon Greville
Wrigglesworth, Ian


John, Brynmor
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)



Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Mr. Don Dixon and


Kirkwood, Archibald
Mr. Allen McKay.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Arnold, Tom


Alexander, Richard
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.


Amess, David
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)


Ancram, Michael
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)





Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Hind, Kenneth


Bellingham, Henry
Hirst, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Holt, Richard


Best, Keith
Hooson, Tom


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hordern, Peter


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Howard, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Brinton, Tim
Hunter, Andrew


Bruinvels, Peter
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jessel, Toby


Buck, Sir Antony
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Butterfill, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Key, Robert


Cash, William
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Chapman, Sydney
King, Rt Hon Tom


Chope, Christopher
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Churchill, W. S.
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Knowles, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lamont, Norman


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Latham, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lawler, Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon
Lawrence, Ivan


Cope, John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Corrie, John
Lee, John (Pendle)


Couchman, James
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Crouch, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lightbown, David


Dicks, Terry
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lord, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Luce, Richard


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Eggar, Tim
MacGregor, John


Emery, Sir Peter
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Evennett, David
Maclean, David John


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Major, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Malone, Gerald


Farr, John
Maples, John


Favell, Anthony
Marland, Paul


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Marlow, Antony


Forman, Nigel
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mates, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mather, Carol


Franks, Cecil
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Freeman, Roger
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Gale, Roger
Mellor, David


Galley, Roy
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moate, Roger


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Goodlad, Alastair
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, Harry
Moore, John


Gregory, Conal
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Grist, Ian
Murphy, Christopher


Grylls, Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Needham, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hanley, Jeremy
Neubert, Michael


Hannam, John
Newton, Tony


Harvey, Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, J.


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Oppenheim, Philip


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Ottaway, Richard


Hayes, J.
Page, John (Harrow W)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Heddle, John
Parris, Matthew


Henderson, Barry
Pawsey, James


Hickmet, Richard
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hill, James
Pollock, Alexander






Porter, Barry
Sumberg, David


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Powley, John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Price, Sir David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Raffan, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thornton, Malcolm


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Thurnham, Peter


Renton, Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rhodes James, Robert
Tracey, Richard


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Trippier, David


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rossi, Sir Hugh
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rost, Peter
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rowe, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Walden, George


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shersby, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Silvester, Fred
Watson, John


Sims, Roger
Watts, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)
Wheeler, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Whitfield, John


Speller, Tony
Whitney, Raymond


Spencer, Derek
Wood, Timothy


Squire, Robin
Woodcock, Michael


Stanbrook, Ivor
Yeo, Tim


Stern, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)



Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mr. Ian Lang and


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Mr. Douglas Hogg.


Stokes, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That this schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 239, Noes 159.

Division No. 334]
[4.16 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Amess, David
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Arnold, Tom
Coombs, Simon


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Cope, John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Corrie, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Couchman, James


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Crouch, David


Bellingham, Henry
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bendall, Vivian
Dickens, Geoffrey


Berry, Sir Anthony
Dicks, Terry


Best, Keith
Dorrell, Stephen


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dunn, Robert


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Eggar, Tim


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Emery, Sir Peter


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Evennett, David


Braine, Sir Bernard
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Brinton, Tim
Farr, John


Bruinvels, Peter
Favell, Anthony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Buck, Sir Antony
Forman, Nigel


Bulmer, Esmond
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Butterfill, John
Franks, Cecil


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Freeman, Roger


Cash, William
Gale, Roger


Chapman, Sydney
Galley, Roy


Chope, Christopher
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Churchill, W. S.
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Glyn, Dr Alan





Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Good lad, Alastair
Moate, Roger


Gorst, John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Greenway, Harry
Monro, Sir Hector


Gregory, Conal
Moore, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Grist, Ian
Moynihan, Hon C.


Grylls, Michael
Murphy, Christopher


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Neale, Gerrard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Needham, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael


Harvey, Robert
Newton, Tony


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Nicholson, J.


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Oppenheim, Philip


Hawksley, Warren
Ottaway, Richard


Hayes, J.
Page, John (Harrow W)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Heddle, John
Parris, Matthew


Henderson, Barry
Pawsey, James


Hickmet, Richard
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hill, James
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hind, Kenneth
Pollock, Alexander


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Porter, Barry


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Holt, Richard
Powell, William (Corby)


Hooson, Tom
Powley, John


Hordern, Peter
Price, Sir David


Howard, Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Raffan, Keith


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Renton, Tim


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Rhodes James, Robert


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hunter, Andrew
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rost, Peter


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ryder, Richard


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Key, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knowles, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Lamont, Norman
Silvester, Fred


Lang, Ian
Sims, Roger


Latham, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Speller, Tony


Lawrence, Ivan
Spencer, Derek


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Squire, Robin


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stanley, John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stern, Michael


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lightbown, David
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Lilley, Peter
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lord, Michael
Stokes, John


Luce, Richard
Sumberg, David


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Taylor, John (Solihull)


MacGregor, John
Taylor, Teddy (Send E)


Maclean, David John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Major, John
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Malone, Gerald
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Maples, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Marland, Paul
Thurnham, Peter


Marlow, Antony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tracey, Richard


Mates, Michael
Trippier, David


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mellor, David
Viggers, Peter


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Waldegrave, Hon William






Walden, George
Whitfield, John


Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Whitney, Raymond


Wall, Sir Patrick
Wood, Timothy


Waller, Gary
Woodcock, Michael


Ward, John
Yeo, Tim


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Warren, Kenneth



Watson, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watts, John
Mr. Carol Mather and


Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Wheeler, John





NOES


Abse, Leo
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Anderson, Donald
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Deakins, Eric


Ashdown, Paddy
Dewar, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Dixon, Donald


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dobson, Frank


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dormand, Jack


Barron, Kevin
Douglas, Dick


Beith, A. J.
Dubs, Alfred


Benn, Tony
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bermingham, Gerald
Eastham, Ken


Blair, Anthony
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Boyes, Roland
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Harry


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Bruce, Malcolm
Flannery, Martin


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Derek


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ian
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Garrett, W. E.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
George, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clarke, Thomas
Godman, Dr Norman


Clay, Robert
Golding, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Cohen, Harry
Harman, Ms Harriet


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Corbett, Robin
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howells, Geraint


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hoyle, Douglas


Craigen, J. M.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Cunningham, Dr John
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)





John, Brynmor
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Penhaligon, David


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pike, Peter


Kennedy, Charles
Radice, Giles


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Redmond, M.


Kirkwood, Archibald
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Lambie, David
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lamond, James
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Leighton, Ronald
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robertson, George


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rowlands, Ted


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Loyden, Edward
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Maclennan, Robert
Soley, Clive


McNamara, Kevin
Stott, Roger


McWilliam, John
Strang, Gavin


Madden, Max
Straw, Jack


Marek, Dr John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Martin, Michael
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Tinn, James


Meadowcroft, Michael
Torney, Tom


Michie, William
Wainwright, R.


Mikardo, Ian
Wallace, James


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wareing, Robert


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Weetch, Ken


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
White, James


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wigley, Dafydd


Nellist, David
Williams, Rt Hon A.


O'Brien, William
Winnick, David


O'Neill, Martin
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David



Park, George
Tellers for the Noes:


Parry, Robert
Mr. James Hamilton and


Patchett, Terry
Mr. Frank Haynes.


Pavitt, Laurie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to

Schedule 2 and 3 agreed to

Bill reported, without amendment.

To be read the Third time this day.

Orders of the Day — Business of the House

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the events in the House today, it may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I explain how business will be dealt with on Thursday. First, Mr. Speaker, you may wish to advise the House on the status of the motion under Standing Order No. 10 relating to British Leyland.

Mr. Speaker: I shall be glad to do that. In view of the loss of Wednesday's business I have had to consider whether the Adjournment motion under Standing Order No. 10, leave for which was successfully moved for earlier in the present sitting, is effective for tomorrow. There are no precedents for the present situation. I therefore propose to give my ruling in relation to the circumstances in which the House now finds itself.
It is clearly the intention of the Standing Order that a matter such as this should be debated at the earliest possible time. I therefore rule that the motion for the Adjournment, to which the House assented at the beginning of the present sitting, should be placed as the first item of public business on the Order Paper for Thursday.

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the House will be grateful for that ruling, Mr. Speaker.
The business for Thursday will now be as follows:
Debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House upon the closure of Bathgate and the C. H. Roe works of British Leyland. Opposition Day (14th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on the Government's decision to bring American cruise missiles to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Peter Shore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the House will be grateful to you for your ruling on what you rightly described as an unprecedented position. The apprehension and worries that many people in the House and the country felt about the results of the irresponsible actions during the night by the Liberals were based on the real and genuine danger that we might have lost this very important debate that the House had willed to take place. I am glad that that danger is removed by your ruling, Sir.
We are grateful to the Leader of the House for giving some clarity of definition—despite all that has happened during the past 24 hours—to Thursday's business.

Dr. David Owen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.] Is it not a fact—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had a long night—[Interruption.] Order. I want to hear the right hon. Gentleman's point of order.

Dr. Owen: It was not irresponsible action by my hon. Friends to ensure that the Bill on Report — [HON. MEMBERS: "In Committee."] — should not only be examined but should have double the amount of time that the Opposition have denied the Government today.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you clarify, if necessary through the Leader of the House, the original statement in the House that prompted an application for Standing Order No. 10? It concerned the corporate plan of British Leyland and the closure of Bathgate and the

truck and bus section in Leeds, but also the privatisation of Jaguar, which affects workers in Coventry. When the emergency debate is held tomorrow, will it preclude reference to the events relating to Jaguar? While not taking anything away from the tragic redundancies in Scotland and Leeds, which must be fought, reference should be allowed to the selling of a public asset such as Jaguar after all that the workers in the city have gone through to put the company back on its feet.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to deal with one point of order at a time. The Adjournment that I granted was on the closure of Bathgate and the C. H. Roe works of British Leyland, leading to 2,200 redundancies. The debate will take place on that subject and speeches must be related to that.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. During your short period of office you have contributed to "Erskine May" quickly by setting a precedent and, to some extent, managing to obtain debates on two important issues. Will you bear in mind that it comes a bit raw when the leader of the Social Democratic party comes here at 4.30 pm complaining about the activities of the Labour party and anybody else in the House, when he was dodging the draft last night? He left— [Interruption.] He left it to the Liberals — [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order?

Mr. Skinner: I think that you should bear in mind for future occasions, Mr. Speaker, that when points of order are raised by the alliance—[Interruption]—you should call a Liberal who has been here all night, not the leader of the SDP, who has been in bed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. When hon. Members put points of order, please will they ensure that they are matters on which I can rule?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you clarify the situation about the debate tomorrow? Those of us with an interest in the matter are very pleased. Surely, however, if the debate is on the Adjournment, that will not mean that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) cannot refer to matters raised in the original statement which sparked off the request?

Mr. Speaker: The debate that I granted was the debate that I was asked to grant. It is a relatively wide debate, but it should take place on the Adjournment for which I was specifically asked and which I granted.

Mr. Giles Radice: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Secretary of State for Education and Science was to have made a statement to the House today on his Green Paper "Parental Influence at School". I also understand that the Secretary of State has issued the Green Paper to the press on that basis, and to the House of Lords. Could you, Mr. Speaker, advise the House whether it would be in order for the Secretary of State to make his statement here today? If not, is it in order for the Secretary of State to issue a statement to the press on the basis that he has made a statement to


the House before he has done so? Could the Leader of the House tell us whether the Secretary of State is to make his statement at all?

Mr. Speaker: The Secretary of State cannot make the statement that he might have made today, because we are still on Tuesday's sitting. If a statement is to be made in another place, that is not a matter for me.

Mr. Biffen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I attempt to help the House? Nobody could have expected my right hon. Friend to have anticipated the nocturnal habits of the House, which have caused some difficulty. We will consider the matter through the usual channels.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The extension of the debate not only made available double the amount of time to consider the matter but also made it possible for us to debate all the clauses rather than half of them. It has been said that that debate led to a threat to the Bathgate and BL debate. Will you, Mr. Speaker, clarify for the House and for those who follow our debates the fact that the motion for the closure, to enable today's business to take place, was moved and supported from these Benches, and defeated by Members in other parts of the House?

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not present during the Committee stage of a Bill, and I have no knowledge of what went on in Committee.

Orders of the Day — Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill (Question of Hybridity)

Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you the question of the possible hybridity of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: So that is what the hon. Gentleman has been doing all night.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) is not renowned for his attendance here, day or night. I make no apologies for staying up all night and then going to Portsmouth to help the Labour candidate launch a by-election.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I and my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip would have wished to see you first privately to talk about this issue. The events of the past 24 hours are to blame for the fact that we were not able to do so. I apologise for any inconvenience that raising the matter in this way might cause. I have received two opinions on the possible hybridity of the Bill. I have submitted both to you, Mr. Speaker, because there is conflict on the matter. I am not trying to deny that. There are three arguments. The first is that the Bill discriminates between electors in relation to their votes; secondly, that discrimination also relates to their representation; thirdly, that there is discrimination between elected bodies. As the Bill stands, all of those issues are open to doubt.
One of the opinions makes it clear that the issues raised are of considerable importance. Because of that, I have decided that the matter should be pursued with you. The issue of possible hybridity relates to the omission from part II and schedule 1 arrangements for the representation of electors who live in the City of London and will be

disfranchised by the interim arrangements. Under the Bill, no representation will be awarded to electors who live in the City.
The Government have implied in statements that representation of the City would be undertaken by Westminster city council representatives. There is no provision for that arrangement in the Bill and, on the advice of both opinions, the Government's position appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the effects of their own Bill.
The opinions address the possible hybridity that arises from the lack of representation that I have described. The first quotes a narrow definition of hybridity that relates to the differential effects on private interests. It concludes that a hybrid Bill is one to which, if it were a private Bill, the Standing Orders relating to private business would apply. It is a procedural definition. Counsel is of opinion that Standing Orders relating to private business are concerned exclusively with the rights of property or interests of a financial type.
The second opinion, however, considers those matters much more deeply and widely and concludes that existing definitions of hybridity do not require the interests concerned to be private. A hybrid Bill is therefore a public Bill that affects the interests of some individuals or corporations differently from those of all individuals or corporations in the same or similar categories or classes. Counsel does not consider that interests that might give rise to hybridity are necessarily restricted to those of a financial or property type. In other words, the issue of representation and the force of votes is considered to fall within the general remit of hybridity.
It would appear that the second opinion raises substantial arguments in relation to the Bill's hybridity. You will have noted, Mr. Speaker, that it does not presume to answer the question that we recognise is a matter for you and the Examiners, but it considers that forceful arguments exist for such an interpretation to be made.
It is also worth recalling the statement by Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster on 10 December 1962 that, if a view can be taken that a Bill is hybrid, it ought to be referred to the Examiners. In these circumstances, I believe that important matters have been raised in relation to the procedures adopted for consideration of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill. I believe that a prima facie case exists for consideration of the Bill as a hybrid Bill.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider my submission.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr. Cunningham) for sending me earlier this afternoon two differing opinions concerning the alleged hybridity of the Bill. On every Bill of this kind, I look most carefully into the possibility of hybridity and I did so in this case with particular care. The hon. Member argues that, because the Bill does not include the City of London as one of the constituent authorities of the interim GLC, it discriminates against the City.
The proper time for such objections—when, as in this case, all the facts are clearly known from the moment of the Bill's introduction—is on Second Reading, which took place as long ago as 11 April. I can, however, give the hon. Gentleman the ruling that he seeks.
My predecessors have always ruled that a Bill which concerned matters of public policy and, insofar as it dealt


with private interests, dealt with them generally as a class was not hybrid. In my view, this Bill deals with matters of public policy and the category of constituent authorities in London — namely, the London boroughs — is a genuine class. The fact that the City does not fall within the class of London boroughs does not alter that situation.
The City of London has always been a separate chartered corporation of great antiquity, with its own distinct constitution. Unlike the London boroughs, it is not a principal council within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1972.
The Bill does not purport to offer rights to the electorate. It gives certain rights to a class of local authorities — namely, the London boroughs in London and metropolitan district councils outside London. All that I have to determine is whether the class of London boroughs is a proper class, and I have so determined.
I therefore rule that the Bill is not prima facie hybrid and I could not, therefore, give priority to a motion to refer it to the Examiners.

Mr. John McWilliam: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Without in any way wishing to challenge your ruling on this, I believe that two matters should be considered in dealing with this.
The first and most important is that the Common Council of the City of London itself relies for its existence on private legislation. Secondly, the electors of the City of London will still be subject to precept from the re-established authority.
Therefore, in this one case in the entire United Kingdom, the Bill involves the granting of taxation without representation. That is a fundamental point which ought to be considered, because that class of persons will be subject to taxation without the right in any way to have that taxation questioned.
I believe, therefore, that the opinions that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) kindly made available to you, Mr. Speaker, and also to me, although contradictory in a way, are not entirely contradictory. The person giving the first opinion did not help by lumping all Standing Orders together, whereas in the second opinion they were dealt with deliberately and in detail.
I believe that if we do not deal with hybridity in relation to the Bill, we shall be in danger of denying people their rights.
Finally, it is only one and a half hours since hon. Members—not Opposition Members—voted to include schedule 1. Until that schedule was included, the question of liability was not clear. That question having been decided by the House, it is only one and half hours since we first had the opportunity to make this argument.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Nothing that the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) has said changes my ruling. I also had the opportunity to look with great care at the two detailed opinions and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for sending them to me. In the light of what was said in those opinions, and in the light of the investigations which I previously made and have made again this afternoon, I can see no cause for changing the ruling that I have already made.

Mr. John Morris: Without in any way questioning your ruling, Mr. Speaker, my recollection is

that on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill Mr. Speaker Thomas heard argument and was prepared to consider the matter further overnight. I recollect that initially he was extremely doubtful about hybridity, or saw no hybridity whatever, but, having heard argument, he was prepared to consider the matter further.
I recall that you said, Mr. Speaker, that the right moment at which to raise the question of hybridity was at an earlier stage, on Second Reading, but I submit that, although it is preferable that it should be raised at the earliest opportunity, if matters concerning hybridity come to light late in the day, it is within the jurisdiction of this House and within your jurisdiction to consider whether there is a prima facie case.
You seemed to indicate initially, Mr. Speaker, that it was wrong to raise the question of hybridity so late in the day, but according to the precedents in "Erskine May", the matter of hybridity on the Park Lane Improvement Bill was raised late in the day, after Second Reading. Certainly, on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, the question was raised well after Second Reading. Therefore, I submit that the question of hybridity can be raised at any stage before Third Reading, after which it ceases to be a matter for the House.
I have had the opportunity to look quickly at the two opinions of learned counsel. In your ruling, Mr. Speaker, you emphasised the word "class". You said that there was no difference in class between one matter and another. May I draw your attention to page 588 of "Erskine May", where it is stated:
The Speaker has defined a hybrid bill as 'a public bill which affects particular private interests in a manner different from the private interests of other persons or bodies of the same category or class'.
I ask you to rule specifically, Mr. Speaker, that, although you emphasised the word "class", some distinction might be made in regard to the word "category". That aspect is dealt with at some length in one of the learned opinions, where it is suggested:
Standing Orders 4A and 10 relating to Private Business and Table of Fees treat a London local authority as including the Common Council or the Council of a London Borough".
That would seem to put the Common Council on the same level as a London borough. Learned counsel goes on to say:
a Bill that alters functions of a member of a local authority shall for the purposes of the Order be deemed to alter functions of the authority; Bills altering the function of a local authority must be published in a newspaper or newspapers circulating in the area of the authority".
The opinion then deals with newspaper advertisements, and lastly it makes the point that Bills relating exclusively to the City of London tend to be treated as private Bills.
For all those reasons, and because of the way in which we deal with the City of London, I submit that my submissions are germane to the argument before the House and to the proposition that you, Mr. Speaker, have put in your opinion. I should be grateful for your guidance on those additional points.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that I did not mislead the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). What I said about the proper time for such objection applied to when, as in this case, all the facts are clearly known from the moment of the Bill's introduction.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has also drawn my attention to "Erskine May". That does not make any difference to my ruling. I have looked, as the House would


expect, with immense care at the submissions that have been made to me. I have no hesitation in saying that, prima facie, this is not a hybrid Bill.

Mr. Tony Banks: I would yield to no hon. Member in my respect for your office and judgment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend does not need a trowel.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend should wait and see.
It is not the function of an Opposition to facilitate Government legislation. If that were so, we would not be here at the moment. Precedent would seem to allow for the question of hybridity to be entered at any time that is felt to be appropriate. I am sure that there has been much consideration of the arguments surrounding the possibility of hybridity in the Bill.
The opinions of two learned counsel have been sought. The one from Mr. Henderson would seem to be most persuasive. May I encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to dwell at greater length on Mr. Henderson's judgment? Although, as you correctly said, the Common Council is not in the same class as the London borough councils, there is a remarkable similarity of functions between them, including a uniformity of interests as provided by the Bill, which, I suggest with great respect, lead to argument that the Common Council is, in effect, in a similar category to the London borough councils.
The second point that I want to put to you for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, is that the franchise is a piece of property. The electors of the City of London who presently take part in the elections for a GLC member will have that right taken away from them if the Bill becomes law. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to say how electors of the City of London can lobby, or demand that their interests in GLC matters be paid heed to, if they do not have an elected or indirectly elected representative to whom they can turn.
On both the grounds of the similarity between the city of London and the boroughs in terms of their functions, and the fact that electors in the city in respect of GLC elections or indirectly appointed bodies will not have the same rights as other electors in London, the Bill could surely be considered seriously as hybrid.
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to study at greater leisure the judgment of learned counsel and to return later?
Hybridity can be entered at a later stage.

Mr. Roger Stott: It will be within your memory, Mr. Speaker, that the last time the House filibustered on the question of hybridity was under your distinguished predecessor, Mr. Speaker Thomas. You will recall that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) raised the point of hybridity on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. Your predecessor came to the House having examined the claims made by the hon. Gentleman and ruled that there was no prima facie case for hybridity. The Secretary of State for Defence, who was then the shadow spokesman on industry, then rose in his place at the Dispatch Box and asked your predecessor to reconsider his ruling in the light of new evidence that was becoming available that day. He asked your predecessor to suspend his judgment on the hybridity, to have another look at the evidence and return to the House a little later that day to make a further ruling. Your predecessor

suspended his original judgment, studied the evidence that was before him and returned three or four hours later to rule that the Bill was hybrid.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a precedent for such a request to be made. I would humbly suggest that you accept the overtures by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and accede to his request in the terms in which a similar request was acceded to by your predecessor when it was made by the Secretary of State for Defence at the Dispatch Box some years ago.

Dr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I put it to you that there is a question in our minds about the part of your ruling which relates to what you said about being aware of the content of the Bill from the time of Second Reading? That is clearly a statement of fact that we cannot contradict, but it is surely the case that, at any time during the passage of the Bill, the Government may have come forward with an amendment to change the nature of the Bill.
I ask you to reconsider or clarify the fact that the timing of the matter has nothing to do with the judgment that is to be made. Like everyone else, we have given a great deal of consideration to this matter, as have learned counsel who have produced these opinions. It is not always possible to examine and report on such matters in time for Second Reading. In any event, even if they were reported at that time, subsequent Government amendments could have changed the position.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that we have had to raise this matter in this way on the Floor of the House without discussing it with you. I hope that you would at least agree, as your predecessors have on similar occasions, to give further consideration to this matter and perhaps meet us to discuss it before a final decision is made.

Mr. Banks: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that I need a further point of order from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks); he has put his case plainly. The two cases that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) raised are different, because something arose during the course of those proceedings which caused a change. The matter was therefore different. There have been no amendments to the Bill and no changes have been made to it since it was introduced. To that extent, all the facts about it were known. To deal with the point about the City of London made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), if he felt that it was relevant, it is something to which he could have sought to put down an amendment during the progress of the Bill. As far as I know, that was not done. I have to deal with the facts as they are and, with the benefit of two opinions from learned counsel, which I have had an opportunity to study in great detail, I have come to the conclusion that my ruling is correct.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would ask you to consider the matter afresh. I fully understand, and I am sure that the whole House is aware, that you have given detailed consideration to the matter already. I should like to put to you some other aspects of the matter and how the House has had to deal with it today. It is evident from the exchanges that have taken place, and our recollections of what happened on the hybridity clauses in the earlier measure, that the question


of hybridity can be raised at any time during discussions on the Bill, before proceeding with the Third Reading, which is the point that we have now reached.
If the House were to proceed and the Bill were to be given a Third Reading, the chance of raising any question of hybridity would be overruled. At the moment we have not reached that stage, and there is nothing in the precedents to forbid the raising of the question at this stage of our proceedings. Indeed, this is the most appropriate time for it to be raised if any question has been mooted about it. Therefore, on that aspect of the matter I suggest that it has been raised at the last appropriate moment.
The second consideration is that the House is dealing with the matter in extraordinary circumstances because of the events of the night. I am not passing any judgment on those events, but if it had not been for the timetable the matter could have been discussed before the opening of the Third Reading tomorrow. Then the whole House would have had the opportunity that you have had, Mr. Speaker, to consider the documents and submissions. You have had the opportunity to look at them, Mr. Speaker, but many other hon. Members have not had that opportunity.
If it had not been for the extraordinary circumstances in which we are proceeding with the Third Reading, the rest of the House would have had the chance to consider the matter. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it would not be any infringement of the rights of the House but would indeed enhance them if you were to rule—this is open to you, because it would not mean any change in your judgment—that it would be better in the interests of the House not to proceed with the Third Reading now.
The Leader of the House is here and if you, Mr. Speaker, were to make a request on that basis, I am sure that he would accede to it. The whole House would then be able to discuss the matter properly tomorrow. What happened on the previous occasion surely reinforces that suggestion. Some of us were not able to consider the matter until it was raised a short time ago. If it had not been for the interruption of the business of the House, all hon. Members would have had the chance to consider the matter properly at the beginning of a proper day's proceedings.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you should give the rest of the House the opportunity which you and others have had to consider the matter. The important issue of the conceivable hybridity of the Bill should be considered at the beginning of a proper day's proceedings.

Mr. John Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for the care that you have shown in looking at the opinions of learned counsel. I want to return to the very narrow ground of the right moment for making the submission as regards hybridity. This is an important constitutional issue. By the standing of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, where the facts are already known this point should be made at an earlier stage.
First, as regards your decision today, Mr. Speaker, that view is not strictly necessary for your determination. In those circumstances, I reinforce the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) that you should give further time to consider this very important matter on which it is not absolutely necessary to reach a decision today.
I make the point on these grounds. If certain facts are changed in the course of a Committee deliberation surely at this stage it would be right and proper to raise the matter. Even if the facts remain constant, the application of those facts to the hybridity rule, if that becomes apparent at a later stage, should be within the province of the House and it should be within your jurisdiction to receive a submission about any stage, otherwise the House would be blinding itself to a truth that is apparent but, unhappily and regrettably, has not been raised at an earlier stage.
Since this matter may be of considerable importance in other deliberations in future years, it would be wrong to rule without giving further consideration to the matter, so that future Speakers and you yourself are not bound by a decision that it is not strictly necessary for you to make today.

Mr. Speaker: I think that I can deal with that very shortly. I looked at the Bill at the beginning to make a judgment on whether it was hybrid or not. I came to the conclusion, with careful advice, that it was not. I looked at it with great care, because I am well aware of the precedents that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) has mentioned. I happened to be present at that time. All the facts were known at that time, and nothing has changed since. I do not think the hon. Gentleman should labour the point as to when it should be brought forward. It is perfectly in order to bring it forward now.
However, since attention has been drawn to the legal opinions which have been sent to me, I must say to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) that one of them is dated 18 April, so it is not exactly a new one. The other one is somewhat later. There have been plenty of opportunities during the course of the Bill to raise this matter. That it is raised now is of no particular significance. Of course it is in order to raise it now. I have had a further opportunity to consult the opinions which have been sent and the submissions which have been made to me and to look again at the situation. I have to rule that it is not prima facie a hybrid Bill, and I cannot give it priority.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind that this Bill, I suppose more than any other in the parliamentary Session, is of the kind that could be dramatically changed when it reaches the House of Lords, in view of the fact that in the other place their Lordships are more concerned than, for instance, most hon. Members on the Opposition Benches about the City of London, and because I think it would be generally accepted on both sides of the House that a simple statement of hybridity or non-hybridity could be challenged at any time during the passage of the Bill, rather than at a specific moment, I suggest that there should be a suspension of judgment. Since their Lordships are so interested in that aspect, they may make changes of a kind that they would not dare to make to any other Bill. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I think that you should examine the matter afresh, bearing in mind that the Bill can be very much changed when it comes back from the other place.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman raises a point that may very well be valid, but it is a purely hypothetical question at present.

Orders of the Day — Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has emerged from Committee, Mr. Speaker, as you have pointed out, unamended. That is not to say that it has not been debated fully and explored fully in detail. Indeed, we are already entering into the territory of legend in the House after a night during which some hon. Members have been present throughout in the Chamber.
If I may enter a brief personal anecdote here, I once went to China in the company of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Wherever we went, there were large numbers of elderly gentlemen who had been on the Long March. Indeed, if all the elderly gentlemen that I was told claimed to have been on the Long March had been on the Long March, it would have been a mass migration. I detect already a number of boarders who have joined in the discussions of last night, as if they had been present, yet they were not present. The Opposition Back Bench Members and Government Back Bench Members who were present may know that some of the judgments that have been made from other parts of the House of what happened are a little wide of the mark.
The Bill paves the way to the fulfilment of one of the two major pledges which the Conservative party made before the last election in regard to local government. The first was the Rates Bill and the second was the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the Greater London council. It is to the second objective that the Bill paves the way.
It lies close to the centre of the Government's policy that what one might call the overhead, the burden of unnecessary administration on the backs of working people—of taxpayers, ratepayers and all other people—should be lightened where it is possible to do that, while providing services reasonably and at good value for money.
We therefore have this part of our policy—that is, the removal of a tier of government that has shown itself to be unnecessary and that has many enemies in the local government world and elsewhere—and the removal of this tier is a central part of the whole approach by the Government to the economy and the management of our lives. This policy, I need hardly remind the House, was resoundingly endorsed at the general election. Although I have been teased by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for not paying too much attention to mandates, there are some things of such note that go into manifestos that it would be odd to put them there unless one was trying to draw the attention of the electorate to them and unless one intended to come to the House and say that they had been endorsed. Where the Labour party, with all its complex procedure of delegation and the creation of manifestos, would be if it did not believe in the mandate, I am not clear. It is an argument which comes oddly from Labour Members.
Nothing that has happened since the election has reduced our determination to give the electors what we believe they clearly voted for. They want less government and not more. In the autumn, therefore, my right hon. Friend will be putting before Parliament our proposals for restructuring local government in the major metropolitan areas. This paving Bill is an integral and necessary part of those plans.
I hope that the House now understands why we must introduce these provisions now and why we cannot wait and include them in the main abolition Bill. It is essential, for if abolition is to be achieved in 1986 provisions cancelling the elections cannot wait for the main Bill, which would be unlikely to become law until after May 1985, when the elections are due to be held. These provisions will be brought into effect by order, and my right hon. Friend has given a clear and unequivocal undertaking not to make that order until after this House has given a Second Reading to the main Bill.
It could not wait for Second Reading in both Houses. The main Bill is unlikely to reach the other place in time to cancel the elections after its Second Reading there. It would be unprecedented to include in the Bill a provision tying the exercise of the order-making power to the Second Reading. There is no precedent for saying in one Bill that a commencement order will not be made until after the Second Reading of another Bill.
The main measures, which come into effect on enactment—the setting up of the staff commission, the information requirement, the enhancing of the borough and district audit rights and so on—are all aimed partly at the formulation of the abolition policy in detail and partly at the smooth transition to the new arrangements. They will already be making their contribution to both of those objectives, particularly to formulation, while the main abolition Bill is in Parliament.
The Bill provides the safeguards that will ensure that its provisions have effect only if abolition goes ahead. Again, it unequivocally ensures that the suspension of elections and the arrangements for transitional councils will come into operation only when a commencement order is made. My right hon. Friend has given a clear and firm undertaking that such a commencement order will not be made until Parliament has approved the principle of abolition by giving the main Bill a Second Reading.
The Bill also provides the necessary mechanisms for repealing the interim provisions and restoring the original situation as quickly as possible, if that were necessary. That is all that it provides, and we clarified that in the discussions in Committee. There is no question of giving the Secretary of State powers to cancel elections anywhere, for whatever reason, or as has been suggested. I stress that point; it should be made clear, as it was made clear in Committee.
The order-making powers of clause 1, both for commencement and repeal, are narrowly drawn. They are exerciseable only for the particular purposes of the Bill. They do not allow any interference with elections in other parts of the country. I make it clear once again that the operation of the Bill's provisions—their fate—is entirely dependent on Parliament's decisions on the main Bill.
It has been alleged that we are presenting the Bill before the House knows our plans for abolition. That is not true. Our plans are well known. They remain broadly as described in the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities". A number of changes have been announced by my right hon.
Friend the Secretary of State and other right hon. Friends since then. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has announced changed plans for ILEA. There have been changes on points of detail, such as those concerning the arts, historic buildings, voluntary bodies and sport, which my right hon. Friend took the opportunity of announcing on Second Reading.
The proposals were set out clearly in the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" in much more detail than in the White Paper preceding the 1974 reorganisation. There is no doubt about our commitment to the prime objective of devolving responsibilities of the lower tier. I have made it clear to the House—

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that that was a White Paper with very large green edges? We are still not clear, even at this point, about who will be responsible for transport and for the police in all the conurbations outside Greater London. The White Paper called for consultations. There have now been well over 3,000 responses to the Department for which the hon. Gentleman has some responsibility and to other Government Departments, and they have been kept a closely guarded secret from hon. Members. Are we not entitled to know the Government's reaction to those responses?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman made a number of points which we have frequently heard. He is right to say that the White Paper had green edges. I have already said that we have made changes since then in a number of respects, including one important respect involving ILEA.
Earlier today, we dealt with the so-called secrecy of consultation, which is a bogus cry. There is no precedent for the Government to publish the correspondence and the documents they receive in a consultation exercise of that type. Those articles remain the property of those who sent them. It remains entirely up to those who sent the documents to publish them if they wish to do so, as many of them have done. That is a bogus cry, and it does not reflect the reality of the debate. I believe that no one says that the issues are not being argued about in reality.
What the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said about our not knowing where we are in relation to, for example, the police in the metropolitan counties is not true. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that our proposal is not necessarily for all time or is the final and only answer, and that other proposals could be brought forward in due course. That statement has been welcomed in many of the metropolitan counties because it shows a sensible flexibility. I believe that recently the leader in the Birmingham Evening Mail strongly welcomed that move.
Many have argued that we should not proceed with such a reorganisation until there has been a great inquiry by a Royal Commission or a blue ribbon team set up to look into the whole matter. When I first became involved in this policy, that seemed to be a commonsensical view. Why do we not have a great study? The more I studied the matter and the more I learned of the history of local government developments in this country, the less necessary that study seemed to be. There is practically no period during which the structures of local government in Britain, especially in London, have been stable for very

long. During the past 150 years there has been a process of steady flux. There is a continuing stream of comment on the different strands of opinion.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) made a thoughtful speech on Second Reading in which he traced the history of the Conservative commitment in London to devolution to the boroughs, which goes back to 1894. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has just left the Chamber because I was going to refer to the Powell plan of 1955, about devolution to the seven boroughs. That was one of the characteristic elements in that tradition.

Mr. Jack Straw: rose—

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not want to defend the Powell plan, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Straw: I am glad to have that off-the-cuff admission by the Under-Secretary that he does not wish to defend the Powell plan. It was put forward by the Conservative committee of which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was chairman in the mid-1950s. However, the Minister will accept that the Conservative Government of the day did not endorse that plan, but in place of it they established the Herbert Commission, which proposed the Greater London council, which was passed into law by the Conservative Government. Therefore, to suggest that there is continuity behind the present policy is to stretch history a little.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands my argument. I want to defend the Powell plan to that extent. A continuing line of Conservative argument led to the Herbert Commission's recommendations, which looked out of date almost as soon as they were produced, six years after the commission was set up. One could argue that they were a diversion. I shall take another example. A distinguished commentator and expert on London affairs who now advises Mr. Kenneth Livingstone of the GLC is Mr. Roland Freeman, who succeeded the former as chairman of the London Municipal Society. In those days he was a great proponent of something that is now familiar to us — a joint board structure, with devolution to the boroughs. It is ironic that he should find himself earning his living from arguing the exact opposite.

Mr. Straw: Before we leave this point, will the Under-Secretary, in trying to weave this strand of historical continuum out of the threadbare facts, reflect that the Marquis of Salisbury's Government established the London County council and the other county councils in the first place? He is correct to say that among the ragbag of ideas put forward by the Conservative party, but rejected, some precedents can be found for this proposal, but when Conservative Governments in the last century and this faced the issue they came down in favour of two-tier government with a strong overall county council—in 1888 it was the London county council and in 1962 it was the GLC.

Mr. Waldegrave: It might be for the convenience of the House if I encouraged the hon. Gentleman to make his own speech in his own time rather than in my time. There is plenty of time for him to make his speech.
My point is entirely valid, and it is not damaged by the hon. Gentleman's criticism. There is a strong strand, within the Labour tradition about which the hon.
Gentleman will know much more than me, of devolution to the boroughs, and until recently the present leader of the GLC was a distinguished representative of that tradition.

Mr. David Howell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's complimentary comments, and I wholly endorse what he is saying about the desirability of further devolution to the boroughs. I am sure that in return he will concede that that leaves the problem of some London-wide functions, whether they should disappear into the Government or whether they should be handled at a London-wide level. This may be a debate for the future rather than for today, but some of us are worried how those London-wide functions will be handled even when, properly, as much as possible is devolved to the boroughs.

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend makes a fair point. History shows that none of the solutions is ever found to be as final as it looks. If we swung right out with a maximalist strategic planning authority to which boroughs would be added, that would soon show itself to be wholly wrong. We are moving sharply back in the devolutionist direction, which is right. Because we are proposing one joint board in London, we are acknowledging that at least one function is London-wide. There is no complete purity in any solution, and I accept the implication of what my right hon. Friend said. Abolishing a tier of authority will clearly save money. The figures will show that, but the savings will not be shown finally until the new arrangements are in place. Estimates of savings must be worked out. Further work will be done on that.
The Ho se seems to approach the subject the wrong way round. One does not keep a structure of government which is unnecessary for the love of it, or even because of the vigour with which people defend it. We must move to a simpler structure.

Dr. John Cunningham: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for giving way amid such gobbledegook. If calculations have been made, why has the House had to wait for Third Reading to be told what is in the Government's mind? Ministers make assertions. Where is the evidence? The Minister says that savings are inevitable because functions are being removed. Throughout the Committee stage we were told that functions were to be transferred. What will be the cost?

Mr. Waldegrave: Whenever the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has a feeble point to make he prefaces it with some personal abuse which, admittedly, is not too tough. My argument is clear. We cannot prove what the savings will be until we know where all the functions will go and what the financial consequences will be.

Mr. W. Benyon: I do not want my hon. Friend to be distracted by noises from the Opposition into thinking that we are not extremely worried about the cost element. I hope that he can reassure me that we are not ducking out of producing a detailed study.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) made a powerful speech on the subject on Second Reading. Of course we are aware of the anxieties. Further estimates and figures will be brought forward. I still think that the House is considering the matter the wrong way round. If one believes that a rational structure is best for local government, it will

probably turn out to be the cheapest structure. Many former critics of the GLC, who are now its defenders. will be able to see savings.

Mr. Tony Banks: The best is not always the cheapest. Does the Minister accept the Coopers and Lybrand figures for the metropolitan counties, or the London Borough Treasurers' figures? The Minister cannot say that no figures have been suggested. The Government are the only body who have not presented figures.

Mr. Waldegrave: It would not be sensible for the Government to present speculative figures. However carefully the figures are worked out, they can be only speculative. Some are speculative with a bias in one direction and others in another direction. They all show the possibility of some savings — even the Coopers and Lybrand figures show that—and some show possible great savings.
Many Opposition Members have been determined opponents of the upper-tier authorities. They hide their present change of heart behind demanding proof of savings which might make them stick to their original position. They did not call for such proof when they held the old opinions — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) is making a speech from a sedentary position. I am happy to see that she has just joined our debate. There were many hours when she could have joined in the debate, but no doubt she was busy elsewhere.
The underlying purpose of the interim arrangements—

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman must make his own speech later. I have given way to him twice, to his junior several times and also to his hatchet man several times. I shall not give way again.
There is another main issue of controversy. We have had bitter arguments about the elections. I still believe that there is nothing unprecedented in the principle of saying that the elections should not go ahead. It would be absurd to allow the elections to go ahead for the rump council in its final period. A real argument has been put forward by some hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, about what to do having reached that conclusion. Although there have been very powerful adjectives of disapprobation about the course we have chosen, I have not heard anything that has shaken my belief that it is a perfectly rational and sensible course to appoint to the transitional council elected members of the lower-tier authorities.
As we know from the advertiser's brief that someone in the GLC sent us, the Opposition know that the argument about gut feeling cannot easily be dealt with by the Government. The advertisers brief says, "Do not spend too much time, for God's sake, defending the GLC because it is indefensible; do not waste time on services because the Government will soon out-manoeuvre you; stick to the arguments that are all about gut feeling and the emotions of elections."
There is a perfectly rational and sensible case for saying that the elected members of the lower-tier authorities should carry the weight of the transitional councils. I am saddened and a little surprised by the adjectives used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.

Mr. David Winnick: rose—

Mr. Waldegrave: There is plenty of time for the hon. Gentleman to make a vehement speech that will be of interest to the House.
We listened to some of the arguments in Committee on certain points. We agreed with the hon. Member for Copeland that the argument against the suspension of the boundaries revision were strong. We agreed to reconsider that point. Arguments were put in great detail about the problem of the representation of minority parties. That worried some of my hon. Friends as well as Opposition Members. We have freely conceded to the House that the objective of having a minority representation cannot necessarily produce an exact proportional outcome in every case. We still think it worthwhile and sensible to pursue the objective of having some minority representation, even though that is not necessarily a perfect outcome. We had useful discussions about that in Committee.
There was some agreement across the Floor on one or two points. The Labour party agreed with us that it would be wrong sharply to increase the size of the GLC, even though that would have given the possibility of having a more exact proportional outcome. We have recognised the genuine concern of hon. Members on various matters and have promised to look again at some of them.
There are various important information provisions in the Bill—in clause 7 and in later clauses—that are of importance to the lower-tier authorities and successor authorities in the formulation of their plans. I would not want to underestimate the amount of work and the intense effort that will be needed by all those concerned in the public service and local authorities, together with councillors in local authorities, to make this difficult transitional period work. It will be a difficult period. There was some unnecessary sabre-rattling in Committee from a few hon. Members about confrontation in this period. That would be quite outwith the traditions of public service that we expect and receive from the local authorities. [Interruption.]

Mr. Tony Banks: So is the Bill.

Mr. Waldegrave: Some hon. Members who made those hostile noises in Committee have just identified themselves by giving tongue in a manner familiar to the Committee.
The Bill has been intensely opposed by those who are defending the interests of the upper-tier authorities, and it has been genuinely and straightforwardly opposed by some hon. Members on both sides of the House whom I would not accuse of defending a particular interest but who are worried about particular points.
The Bill is fair and sensible. It is not the Bill that one might imagine from the rhetoric that it has engendered. When we look back at these debates after a year or so, some of the shrill rhetoric that we have heard will seem odd and synthetic. We may find it hard to remember why some of these provisions were thought to be so extraordinary and dangerous. They are a necessary stage in the achievement of an important and central Government policy. When the period of undoubted difficulty and hard work at the time of transition is over, it will be clear that the Bill was an important element in the development of an important policy. I commend it to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: We have reached this Third Reading debate rather earlier than we had expected. The Under-Secretary has just made a low-key speech about the consideration of the Bill, it purposes, and what he believes it will achieve. My hon. Friends believe that the Bill might more properly be entitled the Transfer of Political Control Bill, because—at least in London—that will be a major outcome of it.
I should like, first, to comment on the events of the past 24 hours, because what has happened in the House has been portrayed by Liberal Members as a victory of some kind for themselves. In their press notice, the Liberals say that they wanted to ensure that the legislation was not rushed through the Commons. However, the net result of their activities last night is that the Bill is passing through the House more quickly than it would otherwise have done.
My second observation about recent events is that not a single change and not a moment's delay has been secured by the Liberal tactics. The behaviour of the Liberals has not led to any change. On the contrary, the passage of the measure has been speeded up.
I wish to make it clear that my hon. Friends and I had no intention of placing in jeopardy the important debate which should have taken place today on Government policy towards British Leyland at Bathgate and Leeds and towards Jaguar. If it had not been for an unprecendented ruling by you, Mr. Speaker, that debate would have been lost. Thousands of workers and their families in the motor vehicle manufacturing industry would have reacted with anger and dismay, and the Liberal party would have born the responsibility. Far from achieving a great victory, the Liberals have in some respects allowed the Government a breathing space on that issue. They have been allowed to wriggle off the hook, at least for 24 hours.
Furthermore, the events of the past few hours have meant that, rather than the issue of hybridity being considered calmly and quietly in your office, Mr. Speaker, we were forced to raise it on the Floor of the House. I strongly regret that. I do not believe that the general public think that the House sitting all night is particularly sensible or clever, but whatever conclusions can be drawn from or claimed for sitting late, none of them can be regarded as anything other than dismal for the Liberal party.
I should like now to deal with the attitude and behaviour of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). He was not present at any time during the Committee stage of the Bill or in any other debate on it. He has not made one speech on it. He came in this afternoon and, with monumental arrogance and hyprocrisy, raised the issue on the Floor of the House and said that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends were determined to prevent the Bill from proceeding and to defend the GLC and the metropolitan counties. We should examine the manifesto on which the right hon. Gentleman fought the general election campaign. It says that the alliance's proposals
would inevitably involve the eventual abolition of the Metropolitan Counties, and the GLC".

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Read on.

Dr. Cunningham: That was the alliance's stance. If the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) wants me to read on, I shall read it all. The manifesto said that the alliance proposed


simplifying the structure of local government to make it more effective by abolishing one of the existing tiers of local government. This will be done by stages … It would inevitably involve the eventual abolition of the Metropolitan Counties, and the GLC".
What more does the hon. Gentleman want me to say?

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us that, in the same paragraph, there appears the statement that those steps will be taken against the background of the establishment of regional government throughout England, including London? Is he aware that that has been our party's policy for much longer than present Labour party policy has been established?

Dr. Cunningham: My intention is not to dispute what the hon. Gentleman says but to point out the hypocrisy of the behaviour of the right hon. Member for Devonport in the Chamber today. He fought the general election campaign on a commitment to do exactly the opposite of what he pretended to be doing today.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: No.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: The hon. Gentleman has attacked my right hon. Friend.

Dr. Cunningham: I shall not give way.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: The hon. Gentleman does not want to answer. He cannot face up to it.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman flatters himself if he thinks that I am not prepared to face him or anything that his party may say. I remember facing up to the hon. Gentleman when he was a colleague in the Labour party, before he ratted on the voters and all the people in the party who had worked so long and hard for him. I assure him that he holds no terrors for me.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: In that case—

Mr. Speaker: Order. So that we may proceed in order, I remind the House that on Third Reading we should be considering those matters which are in the Bill.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) seems to have thought better of the rather extreme comments that he has just made. [Interruption.] If his colleagues will allow me, I will respond to his criticism. He knows exactly what the position is. He knows that the SDP published a long statement on its regional policies and the party published a joint programme from which the hon. Gentleman has quoted selectively. It says that we intend to replace the existing regional authorities with new regional authorities with new powers and a new remit. That remains our commitment and I shall expand on it further if I succeed in catching your eye later in the debate, Mr. Speaker.

Dr. Cunningham: All I can say is that, instead of protesting too much, the hon. Gentleman might have been better advised to plead the fifth amendment.
On Third Reading we have to face the fact that, after consideration in Committee of an unprecedented measure, aside from two small but significant points that the Government have agreed to concede, the Bill is to go through the House largely unchanged. All the original fundamental questions about the Bill remain unanswered

by the Government. I was astonished when the Under-Secretary of State, in his reference to costs and finance, dug a hole for himself and deliberately jumped into it. First, he said that there would be savings and that they would be significant. When we asked why after so many months the Government had still produced no significant case on this, he demurred and then said that it would not be sensible to name a figure.
I have, as I am sure the whole House has, a copy of a letter signed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, dated 12 January 1984, on Conservative Central Office paper. I shall not read it out, but it begins "Dear Councilor," and ends, "Yours ever, Patrick". Attached to that letter is a document which actually repeats the claim that savings of at least £120 million will be made as a result of this measure. Why does the Under-Secretary of State go on denying this? Where is the evidence? Why cannot the Government produce an argument to substantiate that claim? It is because there is no such argument or evidence. That is the reality on finance, so let us challenge the Government head-on once again about this. They have denied the House of Commons, the GLC and the metropolitan county councils any vestige of evidence to support that claim although they have had months and months in which to do so. They have failed abysmally to answer that central question in these debates.
As with the arguments on finance, so with the arguments about structure and functions: there has been no proper inquiry, no evidence to support the Government's assertions, and nothing which could convince even Conservative Members, many of whom in their heart of hearts must shudder at the probable impact of this measure—the bureaucracy involved. the anti-democratic nature of the legislation, the further accretion of powers to Whitehall, all embodied in this miserable little measure.
After a series of major debates, in which we have spelt out and drawn attention to the unprecedented abolition of elections, taking votes away from 30 million people next year, the gerrymandering of political control in London—

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Rubbish.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman says, "Rubbish." How can he contest the facts? His right hon. Friend has already conceded that the political control in London will change.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the taking away of the votes of 30 million people. Will he confirm to the House that those 30 million people will have a local government vote? They will vote for the boroughs, and that is where the action is.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman says that that is where the action is. If there is no problem about the GLC, why are we going through the tortuous business of abolishing it? What is the purpose? The reality is that, for the people of London and the metropolitan counties, the action is in the areas of strategic planning and transport and in all the services that the GLC and the metropolitan county councils provide. There is a great deal of action there, with many important decisions being taken and many important services being provided.

Mr. Wareing: Does my hon. Friend agree that 1985 will be the first year in peacetime this century when the citizens of Britain will be unable to cast their vote in a local election?

Dr. Cunningham: I agree that, as my hon. Friend says, by an unprecedented act, people will be denied the right to vote and to elect councils democratically — councils which were actually the creation of a former Conservative Government in the early 1970s. That is one of the supreme ironies of the measure.
Important principles are at stake. There will be a morass of three different systems of administration. First, there will be the concluding period of the existing authority; then there will be the interim system; then the joint boards will take over. There will be three different systems within a very short period. What is proposed is almost tailor-made for confusion, for delay, for bureaucratic mix-ups and for the ineffective, inefficient use of important scarce resources of manpower and of finance.
Budgets will be controlled from Whitehall for three years. I heard the Secretary of State say that people wanted less government, and that as a result of the Bill they would get less government. The absolute reverse is the case. As a result of the measure, there will be more involvement by central Government, not less. Several points can be made to substantiate that. It represents another "own goal" in regard to the purposes, provisions and outcome of the measure.
We see another unprecedented power being given to Ministers — the power of compulsion over council employees, placing them in the invidious position of having either to carry out the policies of the elected members of the council, or to conform to instructions issued by the Secretary of State from Whitehall.
A further general point to be made about the Government's attitude on consideration, as with the so-called Rates Bill, is that reasoned arguments —arguments backed up with fact and carefully thought through, which have been put not only by people in the authorities involved but by hon. Members on both sides of the House — have been simply brushed aside. In many cases they have barely been answered, showing the Government's intention to steamroller the Bill through with minimum, if any, change and with no concession to reason or sensible argument or debate.
Part III assumes that this House and the other place will pass a subsequent measure. The Minister has not responded to that point either.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: indicated dissent.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) shakes his head. I cannot believe that he has read the Bill if he does not believe that. He has only to look at clauses 7 and 8 to come to that conclusion. The Bill assumes that the subsequent substantive measure will be enacted.
We have not only an example of bad, unprecedented, bureaucratic and, in some cases, authoritarian provisions in the Bill, but no less an authority than the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to thank for being able to share the innermost thoughts of the Government about it. Speaking to a Conservative meeting on Wednesday 14 March 1984—I quote from the Conservative party's news service—he said:
The GLC is typical of this new, modern divisive version of Socialism. It must be defeated, so we shall abolish the GLC.

It is difficult to recall a more seriously anti-democratic authoritarian public statement by any Cabinet Minister than that in my 14 years in Parliament.
Far from improving administration or giving people a better deal or even guaranteeing more efficient and effective services, far from saving public money and streamlining administration, the likely outcome of the Bill is the reverse. Bureaucracy will increase. Decision taking, far from being streamlined, will become more complicated. Accountability will be diminished. The effective use of resources will decline. The way in which we use manpower and finance in the provision of services will become less efficient. People will almost certainly have to suffer worse services than presently exist when many are desperately crying out for an improvement and an expansion of the services which for so many people, particularly in the inner cities, are already dangerously inadequate and unable to respond to their genuine needs and requirements.
The Bill has virtually no merit at all, and Labour Members remain implacably opposed to it.

Mr. John Whitfield: We have had countless hours of debate on what has become popularly known as the paving Bill, which lays the ground for the abolition of the metropolitan county councils and the GLC. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, I believe on Second Reading, perhaps the most notable opposition to the Bill has come from the Conservative Benches. I should like to address my remarks to that opposition.
The House has listened to some plausible criticism of the Government's proposal from, among others, my right hon. Friends the Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). In addition to the power of oratory that my right hon. Friends possess, they have in common the fact that they were all members of the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup who must bear some responsibility for saddling the country with the overweight, overexpensive and overcomplex system of local government—

Mr. Frank Dobson: So does the Prime Minister.

Mr. Whitfield: —that the Government have a clear manifesto commitment to reverse.
The Local Government Act 1972 was hailed at the time as a long overdue piece of reform. In my view, it was one of the most disastrous pieces of legislation. It made a substantial contribution to our loss of control over public expenditure. It resulted in the considerable apathy that the public now have for all aspects of local government. It is a measure of which we in the Conservative party should be somewhat ashamed but which we are now in the process of reversing, at least in part.
The abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils is only the first step towards a return to what may now be regarded as the halcyon days of local government that existed before the 1974 reorganisation.
One would have thought that my four right hon. Friends, to whom I have referred, would at least have


remained silent on the subject of the difficult legislation upon which the Government have now embarked. One thing that I have learnt during my short time in this place is that admitting errors, or even remaining silent about them, seldom commends itself to hon. Members. Those of my right hon. Friends have not remained silent; they have argued with all the considerable eloquence that they command that the Government's proposals to limit local authority expenditure are an unwarranted interference with local government sovereignty. They have argued also that to proceed with the Bill is to deny local people their democratic rights. Neither of those arguments stands up to examination. Local government sovereignty is a myth. Local government is neither local nor is it government. By the Local Government Act 1972—

Mr. Walter Harrison: How long was the hon. Gentleman in local government? What experience does he have of it, and what does he know about it?

Mr. Whitfield: My experience of local government is as a ratepayer. [Interruption.] The Local Government Act 1972 ensured that local government ceased to be local. Those who brought in that Act ensured the abolition of the rural and urban district councils. It was they who abolished those councils. Similarly they abolished the borough councils and the county borough councils. Little did we know in those days how lucky we were to have local government which was indeed local.
Those who worked in the pre-1974 authorities were well known, approachable and, in the main, respectable local personalities. They had a specific commitment and affection for the areas they represented. Even the county boroughs were small enough to have a special character and flavour of their own. They were more than capable of running their own police forces and their own transport services. They found no difficulty in mending their roads or in deciding who should have planning permission and who should not. They did not need any strategic plan.

Mr. William O'Brien: I appreciate the opportunity to make one point. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that in the period to which he is referring we had county councils. One of the most efficient was that in the West Riding. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should go back to county organisations? Is that what he is implying?

Mr. Whitfield: The hon. Gentleman will hear shortly what I have to say on that matter.
I know of no person in my constituency of Dewsbury who would not welcome the return of the county boroughs of Huddersfield and Dewsbury and of the urban and rural district councils in Mirfield, Kirkburton and Denby Dale—

Mr. Harrison: rose—

Mr. Whitfield: —other than the enormously privileged but, unfortunately, not so few who work for and run the faceless new authorities which, in my constituency, are Kirklees metropolitan district council and West Yorkshire county council.

Mr. Harrison: rose—

Mr. David Alton: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman giving way? If so, to which hon. Gentleman is he giving way?

Mr. Whitfield: I do not intend to give way.
Local government ceased to be local the day these gargantuan authorities took over from their indigenous predecessors. Local government ceased not only to be local but also to be government. Today local government is no more in the vast majority of cases than an agency through which central Government administer the various services they provide to the community, he they education, housing, planning control, social services or whatever.
Having created these agencies to administer local services, having imposed many additional responsibilities on them and having directly provided over half the funding of the agencies, surely central Government are entitled to decide the manner in which the agencies should operate.

Mr. Harrison: rose—

Mr. Whitfield: In advancing their arguments that central Government should riot be allowed to control these monster agencies which they have created, right hon. and hon. Members made much reference to local democracy.

Mr. Harrison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way, because he has referred to my birthplace?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) makes a touching point, but unless the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Whitfield) gives way it is not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to intervene.

Mr. Whitfield: I could not hear whether the right hon. Gentleman wished to intervene. I shall give way to him.

Mr. Harrison: I tried to intervene several times when I heard my birthplace mentioned. When I heard the hon. Gentleman speaking about Dewsbury I tried on at least four occasions to intervene. Having served for six years some 20 years ago on the council in that area, having family in the area and having part of the hon. Gentleman's constituency associated with mine, I am of the opinion, through family information and my constituency relationship, that I am knowledgeable about the statements that the hon. Gentleman has made. My information is quite contrary to that of the hon. Gentleman. From the statements that are being made in the Chamber about knowledge of local government, one wonders what hon. Gentlemen know about local government.

Mr. Speaker: It might be a good idea if the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Whitfield) was allowed to finish his speech. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) might then catch my eye, to the great enjoyment of the House.

Mr. Harrison: I am trying to put a question to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman put a question to the hon. Member?

Mr. Harrison: I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman this direct question. Seeing that he is so knowledgeable, was he born in his constituency, how long has he lived in it, and how long has he represented it?

Mr. Whitfield: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding the House of his associations with my constituency, which, from what I can gather, are in the past.
I think that we are being diverted, and I propose to proceed with what I was saying. If people like the right


hon. Gentleman will speak to people who live in Dewsbury—the people with whom the hon. Gentleman claims to have such an affinity—they would know that the vast majority of them do not even know who their county councillors are. Those who do know who their county councillors are have no idea what they are doing. Hon. Members could also find out, if they bothered to speak to the electorate whom they claim to represent, and about whose democratic rights they seem to be concerned, that most district councillors in these areas in their private moments are looking forward to taking over the responsibilities of the metropolitan county councils, which they have long regarded as being an unnecessary, expensive, interfering adjunct in the business of local affairs. If only they would talk to the ordinary man in the street about such issues, the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken against the Bill would not feel so confident about wheeling out the worn-out old arguments about local sovereignty and democracy.
While the electors of London may find the political scene in London a little duller without Mr. Livingstone, the electors in the metropolitan counties will hardly notice the difference when the counties cease to exist. The metropolitan counties will be mourned by no one. However, I admit that their abolition would be no panacea. As the House will know, there are many imperfections in the metropolitan districts, but that is not under debate today.
I ask the Secretary of State, when he comes to frame the detailed implementing legislation in the autumn, whether he will at least consider some measures that might require, or at any rate encourage, the districts to delegate some of their increased responsibilities to the parish councils. Only in this way will the business of the administration of local affairs be bought back to the people from whom it was so savagely wrenched in 1974.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We are coming to the end of what has been an extremely compacted period of debate on this fundamental constitutional Bill. I shall deal first with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), so that the issue may be put in its proper perspective.
There have been two relatively recent substantial reforms of local government. The first, 20 years ago, created the GLC. The second, 10 years ago, created the six metropolitan counties. The position taken by Liberal members who were in the House on those occasions was that regional government should always be the objective and the way of devolving government from Westminster nearer to the people. It has been our premise and it remains our strong view that we in Westminster try to run too much of the government of Britain and that it would be better run if it were handed nearer to the people.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the larger results of the Bill will be to do precisely that—to hand closer to the people the powers that have been misused by the GLC?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in part we go with the Government along the road of devolution of local authority power. However, we do not

go with them in their belief that in attempting to reform local government one can trespass on two fundamental constitutional principles. The first is to believe that it can be done without proper public debate, consulting the public to ensure that what is done will last. Although the Government went into the last election having added at the last moment into their manifesto a commitment—we have always accepted that it was there—to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties, that should never have been contemplated without a Royal Commission or similar inquiry to ensure that the complex interrelated and important matters of providing the services for the people would be debated and properly resolved before decisions were taken.
Our second fundamental objection is that nowhere in their manifesto did the Government envisage abolishing elections. They did not tell the country that part of the process of abolishing the authorities was that before their abolition elections would be abolished, while the authorities continued. One of the most appalling implications of that is that in London a change of political control is an inevitable consequence of the proposals which the Government are laying before the House in this paving measure.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: We have listened to five or six hours of the hon. Gentleman's discourse since early yesterday. Has he anything new to say?

Mr. Hughes: Had the hon. Gentleman been here all the time—

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I have been here.

Mr. Hughes: —he would have realised that it was necessary to deal separately with the various provisions of the Bill. I was grateful that at least two of the hon. Members who chaired the Committee of the whole House were complimentary to me in saying that, unlike many hon. Members, I concentrated on dealing with the amendments before the Committee.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) may be satisfied with my following point because to some extent it is new. During the recent elections, exactly what was the position — this was implicitly defended by the hon. Member for Copeland—of the Labour party, as opposed to the Conservative, Liberal and Social Democratic parties? It is notable that not a word was said in the 1979 Labour party manifesto—hon. Members can look at the documents later if they do not believe me—about whether the Greater London council should be continued or abolished. That was clearly a live issue in 1983, because the Government had declared their intentions. About the time of the general election, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) told us about the Labour party's view. The 1983 Labour manifesto stated:
We are examining how best to reform local government. We believe that services such as health, water and sewerage should become answerable to a much greater extent to elected members, and we aim to end, if we can, the present confusing division of services between two tiers of authority. Unitary district authorities, in England and Wales, could be responsible for all of the functions in this area that they could sensibly undertake.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: When was that?

Mr. Hughes: That was in June 1983, the very time when the hon. Member for Copeland, who is leading for the Labour Front Bench—during the past 24 hours he was leading only in the last round and not the 14 rounds


that preceded it—was accusing us of being inconsistent. I challenge him to show the country how he is consistent when the Labour party completely changed its position. We had said repeatedly that we believed in regional government.
I shall quote — not selectively — from the alliance manifesto which states that we propose
to revitalise local government … simplifying the structure"—

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I find great difficulty, when the hon. Gentleman reads successive election manifestos, in relating what is being said to anything in the Bill which, I understand, Mr. Speaker, is the only purpose of a Third Reading debate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said in response to a previous interjection that speeches on Third Reading must relate to what is in the Bill. Hon. Members should not deal with what might be contained in the Bill in other circumstances.

Mr. Hughes: Inevitably, we have been properly dealing with the details of the legislation as we come to the final phase of the Bill. I wanted to put my view clearly on the record by quoting because the hon. Member for Copeland misled the House by quoting selected parts of the alliance manifesto. It is very short and it says:
we propose … to revitalise local government … by … simplifying the structure of local government to make it more effective by abolishing one of the existing tiers of local government".
I hope that the hon. Member will read this in Hansard.
This will be done by stages against the background of our proposals for the development of regional government. It would inevitably involve the eventual abolition of the Metropolitan Counties, and the GLC (but not ILEA) and would also allow for the restoration of powers to some of the former County boroughs".
If we were in the position of the Under-Secretary and his colleagues and we had the opportunity to introduce legislation to reform local government, we would make sure, first, that we did it after consultation with the people concerned; secondly, we would make sure that regional government was established according to the preferences of the people in the English regions; and thirdly, we would not contemplate this amazing trespass into constitutional precedent in abolishing elections.
I want to make two other points at this stage. First, the Government have always sought to justify their proposals on the basis that they will save money. The Secretary of State—a lawyer—said that the onus was on him who wished to change the system to prove his own case. He has miserably, noticeably and comprehensively failed to produce the evidence to show that his reforms will save money. If they do save money, he will be vindicated after the event. However, we are meant to be planning the future of local government, not guessing at it. It is appalling that all he does is accumulate information in his office and secrete it about his person, and those of his advisers, instead of sharing it with the public who want to know the arguments, the facts and the figures.
Second, it is clear that the Government realise that their arguments are flawed. They have admitted it throughout our debates on this Bill. They ignored the electors of the City of London. They accept that the plans to have ILEA converted this year from a directly elected body to an indirectly elected body next year, to an indirectly elected body the following year again were—in the words of

the Secretary of State for Education and Science—not totally perfect. According to another quotation from the Government, the arguments from these Benches had a certain validity, but were not overwhelming. As the Under-Secretary has been gracious enough to admit on occasions, the Government know that they are in hot water. They have been told so by their own supporters, and they have been told so by us.

Mr. Waldegrave: It is rather unfair of the hon. Gentleman to criticise the Government when we listen to the arguments of the House or the Committee and make a change. On the whole, the arguments of the alliance parties have not persuaded us. We have managed to resist them fairly easily. Changes have been made, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be gracious enough to thank us for them.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will know that I was here when the announcement about changes to ILEA was made. I welcomed the changes and hoped that the Government would go both steps down that road and not stop where they did. Of course, the changes are welcome. What is appalling is that the Government were determined from the beginning to make sure that there would be no amendment in case that might delay the legislation. There was no Report stage, and there was no chance for a proper debate.
If we have run into difficulties during the past 24 hours, those difficulties are not of our making. They are the result of the Government's attempt — I slightly alter the wording of the White Paper—to steamroller the cities, instead of planning for their future. They have sought to rush through this place legislation without precedent to make sure that we provide for an eventuality that may never happen. This place may never abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties, and it has not yet been asked to do so. We should not be asked to consider how they should be governed in interim phases of 11 months until the substantive matter comes before us. It is the wrong way to legislate, because it is to legislate without knowing where we are going. However, that is the Government's chosen route.
The opposition has come from this side persistently, consistently and consecutively for the past 25 hours. We said at the beginning, we have said throughout, and we say again that the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill grossly misnames a constitutional abuse of this House, and it is an exercise by the Government of their functions in a way that shows their disdain for the electors of our capital city of England and the six metropolitan regions that have authorities. Millions of people have told the Government that they are going the wrong way. We say it now, and we shall continue to oppose the Government until they change their mind.

Mr. W. Benyon: I shall detain the House for only a short time. I refer to your remarks, Mr. Speaker, during the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The Bill does not outline what is contained in a Bill abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan counties. That Bill has not been published. We are not discussing that provision. We are discussing a paving Bill. In spite of the length of our proceedings, which have lasted for more than 24 hours,


and in spite of our detailed discussions, I believe that only one provision in the Bill really matters. That is the substitution of the present governing bodies of the GLC and the metropolitan counties by ad hoc bodies and, in the case of the GLC, changing the political complexion thereby.
Everything else does not matter. It is perfectly sensible and in accordance with precedence to postpone elections and leave the existing authority in operation until the new measures come into force. That does not worry me at all.
It is fascinating being in the House because, when such a measure is introduced, we never quite know where we are going. However, as the argument proceeds, people outside the House begin to judge matters from what they have heard in our debates and from what they have read in the press. Then they begin to make their views known. I submit with the greatest respect that on this one provision the argument has been lost. It was lost earlier in the most telling intervention—I cannot remember which of my hon. Friends made it. He wondered whether we would have introduced such a measure had Sir Desmond Plummer still been in charge of the GLC. That sums it up.
The argument has been lost, not only among the supporters of the Opposition parties, but among ordinary sensible Conservative voters. Before the Bill is considered in another place in even greater detail than it has been in the House of Commons, I make one last fervent appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends to remove from the Bill the provision I have referred to. I accept entirely that consistency, loyalty and dedication are worthy attributes. We all recognise those attributes in my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, nothing would become them more than if they recognised that what appears correct in practice may be wrong in principle.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I wish to be brief. The Under-Secretary said, when moving the Third Reading, that there was nothing unprincipled about the Bill. That is far from the truth. The Bill seeks to cancel the 1985 elections. In the past, those elections have always been formed as part of legislation and have not, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) said, come before any Bill to abolish the councils. In that sense a grave principle is involved and I hope that my hon. Friends and perhaps some Conservative Members will make it clear to the Under-Secretary that they disagree with that principle.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Whitfield) appears to have left the Chamber. He admitted his knowledge in such matters, because he was a ratepayer. He referred to the position of local authorities in Yorkshire before the last reorganisation in 1974. I should like to refer to my locality. The Minister, on Second Reading and today, referred to the concept of two-tier authorities as though it were new since 1974 or that it was evil, ill-conceived and should never be used.
I remind the Under-Secretary—and the hon. Member for Dewsbury, if he comes back into the debate within the next few minutes—that my locality, which fell under the West Riding county council until 1974, had one county councillor. There was also an urban district council in my village which had 12 representatives. That was replaced as a result of legislation from the Conservative

Government in 1974. Indeed, the hon. Member for Dewsbury failed to mention—I do not know why—the politics of that Government who introduced the very structure which this Government will eventually abolish.
In my area, those representatives were replaced by three members of the Rotherham metropolitan borough council and one member of the South Yorkshire county council. The number of councillors in my village was reduced from 13 to four. Now the Government are, in effect, telling my constituents and those living in that village that they can do without another one and that the number can be reduced to three. Some argue that that was not an attack on local democracy. But it was. The events of 1974 were bad for my constituents and for their contact with local councillors and in the communities. If the Bill is enacted it will further weaken my constituents' contact with their local councillors; it will not bring councillors any closer to them. Indeed, in that example 25 per cent. of the councillors will be taken away.
The measure involves a grave constitutional issue. It raises the old question of the substitution of district councils for metropolitan county councils. The whole matter must be examined. First, district councillors, by implication, cannot know what duties have been performed by county councillors. Moreover, the introduction of those bodies has wider implications. I understand that it is so in the GLC. However, I do not wish to labour the point about the GLC. The Opposition have done that often enough in this and earlier debates on the Bill.
The measure will change the political balance of power. That is a most dangerous course for the House to follow. Any change of power — whether in national or local government—has always been done through the ballot box. It is a grave constitutional error for a Government to change the balance of power—be it in a town hall, county hall, or wherever—unless it is done through the ballot box.
In 1974, West Riding county councillors were put into the South Yorkshire county council. Legislation then meant that the West Riding county councillors were given extended office while the elections for the South Yorkshire county council came forward—a council, incidentally, which has good, popular support. I do not wish to digress, but that council has an excellent transport policy. I do not know whether "Streamlining the Cities" will come into being, but I assure the Under-Secretary that my constituency has no such cities. The people there would go to great lengths to demonstrate the popularity of South Yorkshire county council — in respect not just of transport but of many other services.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I am intrigued to know whether the hon. Gentleman paid those lavish—perhaps well-deserved—compliments to South Yorkshire county council as a result of receiving the well publicised letter from Mr. Thwaites, the leader of the council, asking the hon. Gentleman to do a little more in debates in defence of those principles.

Mr. Barron: My answer to the hon. Gentleman is no. The hon. Gentleman will see from Hansard that I have taken part in every Division but one during the past 24 hours, when I was busy on the Committee proceedings on the Finance Bill. That is one out of a considerable number. I spoke on Second Reading. I took no notice of the letter


from Mr. Thwaites. I realise that Roy Thwaites represents over a million people in the South Yorkshire area who want to retain that council. I understand why he is anxious—as is every hon. Member from the area—to retain that council on behalf of our constituents. The Opposition are not going for Red Ken or anyone else. We are here to defend our constituents' interests, and that is what I intend to do—letters or no letters.
The case that the Under-Secretary has put on Third Reading is not proven. I do not propose to go over the arguments about Coopers and Lybrand or about whether the measure will or will not save money. The Under-Secretary has once more failed to convince us. Perhaps one day we shall discover the truth, but I fear that it may be too late and that a grave attack on local democracy will have been made by then. The Under-Secretary should be honest with the British people and tell them that the Bill is nothing more than an attack on local democracy and that it has nothing whatever to do with defending it.

Dr. Ian Twinn: I welcome the paving Bill. Our patience has been tried a great deal with details over the past 25 hours, and we have heard right hon. and hon. Members rehearse arguments about what they call the great principles at stake. Having listened to the Second Reading and Committee debates, I cannot understand where some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members find the principles in the Bill, which is essentially a practical measure to pave the way for the introduction of a much-needed reform of local government.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the hon. Gentleman not count the removal of people's right to free elections as a matter involving a principle?

Dr. Twinn: I was about to say that if there is a principle behind the Bill it is the reform of local government and its return to local people. I, too, speak in the interests of my constituents. The people of Edmonton find the Greater London council a remote body with very little bearing on them. Indeed, we have sometimes found the London borough of Enfield rather remote. People regret the passing of the smaller local authorities in London, although they understand that it is necessary in terms of providing services.
In London, we face a top-heavy and redundant tier of local government. I shall not rehearse the arguments for "Streamlining the Cities" that have been advanced over the past 25 hours because that is not what the Bill is about. It is about making it possible to introduce a further Bill later. The Government propose to take a radical step to remove a burden on ratepayers in London and in the metropolitan counties.
I am especially pleased with the progress of the Bill and with the introduction of direct elections for the ILEA. Although that does not affect my constituents, it affects those with whom I have worked closely throughout my political life in London. Living in the ILEA area, and having worked for a polytechnic funded by the body, I greatly appreciate the fact that it is to be controlled by politicians who are directly responsible to the electorate.
The principle that right hon. and hon. Members have tried to produce is a spurious one. It might have been better

received had it been well argued during the past 25 hours but we have heard little detailed argument about the principle from my right hon. and hon. Friends and less from the Opposition.
In Committee, members of the GLC who are also Members of the House asked what representations we had received from our constituents. I have received 10 printed slips from the GLC and two reasoned letters in support of those slips. I have received as many reasoned letters in support of Government policy. In fact, I have not received much post at all on this issue. That is surprising when one thinks that the GLC has spent £3 million on advertising. One wonders about its sense in doing that, and about the value to ratepayers of the advertising. Obviously it has not stirred up the great political ferment that the GLC would have liked.
In addition, about £60 million has been given to groups in London, and many of those groups have been encouraged to write to add words of support against "Streamlining the Cities". The public support that that booklet was meant to whip up has not materialised. Of course, some bodies have contacted hon. Members, but they have not conducted a physical campaign which has been of great impact within London, outside a narrow party political circle.
Therefore, I see no difficulty with the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has promised that the abolition of the elections will not be implemented until this House has approved the principle of the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils.
I believe that is good enough for us in this House. It is essential that the Bill goes through and is enacted so that future policy can be implemented, if the House decides to pass that legislation eventually. It would not be possible to do it the other way round. Therefore, in practical terms, I welcome the Bill, and hope that it goes through today.

Mr. Tony Banks: I have taken a fairly active part in the proceedings of the Bill. I do not wish to detain the House for too long this evening, but I want, for the record, to make a few remarks about the Bill, and the present position.
I believe that we have wasted our time in trying to persuade the Government to make changes in this Bill. We have tried to divert them from the course on which they are set—confrontation with local government here in London. I confine myself to London, and to the chaos to which the Government will be reducing local goverment structures in London and elsewhere.
I ask Conservative Members to reflect for a moment. I have asked them before and I shall ask them again. I am ever an optimist. Let us think for one moment what would be the response of Conservative Members, of the Tory gutter press and indeed of the more respectable Tory press if the proposal were being brought forward by a Labour Government, and if a Labour Government were actually to suggest that elections due to be held in London were to be eliminated and the political control of the body for which the elections were to have been held was to be changed from Conservative to Labour. What would Conservative Members say? I listened to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), and I took some heart. I know precisely what Conservative Members would have said if a Labour Government had been putting forward this legislation.
I remember what the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said when he challenged his former Parliamentary Private Secretary, now the benighted Under-Secretary—

Mr. Waldegrave: Political assistant.

Mr. Banks: Assistant, or some form of baggage master, or whatever the relationship was.

Mr. Waldegrave: I was a political adviser, as the hon. Gentleman was to the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart).

Mr. Banks: It has been said that, if a Prime Minister needs political advice, he or she should not be Prime Minister.
Anyway, there was a close relationship between the present Under-Secretary and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. The right hon. Gentleman challenged the present Minister to say whether he believed that abolishing an election and changing the political control of the GLC and other bodies was politically or morally acceptable. Having put that point to the Minister, the right hon. Gentleman repeated it to the Secretary of State. The Minister might respond to me, but I wanted to hear him say to his previous political master something that he did not say because he had not the guts to do so.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman cannot always have exactly what he wants. I did not think it worth responding to a question of that kind. Obviously, if I thought that I had been asked to do something immoral, I would not be standing at the Dispatch Box to do it, and I do not believe that either he or my right hon. Friend meant that.

Mr. Banks: It is a great shame that the Minister did not say that when the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup challenged him directly. But perhaps we can draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the Official Report, where he will at least find a reply, albeit one made in his absence. It is clear that the Minister is unwilling to be closely associated with this legislation in the presence of his previous political master, whose views on democracy, accountability and opposition are very different from those of the political mistress whom he now serves.
The Ministers have been ridiculed at the Dispatch Box, not only by Opposition Members but by Conservative Members. At times it has been almost too cruel to witness, but they deserve to be ridiculed. With this legislation, the three primary Ministers concerned have destroyed their political reputation, not only in the country but in the House. The Minister referred to me earlier as a hatchet man. Fine; if that is how he sees my role, so be it. But he has been acting as a sort of hired gun. Of course he will get pats on the back from his colleagues. "Well done," they will say. But when they go away, they will say, "My God, another awful performance at the Dispatch Box. We did not have much of an argument to start with, but the Minister made very little of it."
The fact is that no one really respects a hired gun. The Minister has lent his undeniable talents to trying to push through legislation which he knows in his heart to be undemocratic, unjustifiable and totally indefensible in constitutional terms. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup even quoted from the Minister's own

book "The Binding of Leviathan". Having listened to those words, I do not know how the Minister has the nerve to come to the Dispatch Box in view of what he has said and done before, and to defend this bastard piece of legislation.
I know that I am biased. At least I am prepared to admit it. But the Opposition — that includes Conservative Members, because they have been in opposition—have won all the arguments. The country knows that we have won all the arguments; Londoners know that we have won all the arguments. But, of course, we have lost all the votes. That is to be expected when we are confronted with the arrogance of today's Tory power, and the elective dictatorship that has been referred to by Conservative Members.
The Bill, like the White Paper, is ill thought out and riddled with inconsistencies. It has all the hallmarks of legislation conceived in undue haste and originating in political vindictiveness. The interim councils will not work. We have heard all the arguments—for instance, that the appointing councils will have to try to find some form of political balance. The Ministers could not tell us what political balance was. All that they could say was, "If no one else decides, the courts will have to."
Their motto is always to leave it to the courts, to leave the legislation as open as possible, and to let someone else get out of the mess that the Ministers have put them into—because it is a mess that local government is being pushed into by the Bill. It will provide a carnival for lawyers, which no doubt will please some Conservative Members, but it is so imprecise and so badly worded and drawn that it shows the Government's profound ignorance of the implications of their own undue haste.
Ministers have no real idea of the range and complexity of the services provided by the GLC. That is why they are requiring officers to give information under duress. Ministers who have refused to give Opposition Members information will now compel others to give them the information they should have had before they put the Bill before the House. The Bill is not only ill conceived; it is an intellectual insult to hon. Members on both sides of the House and to those who have served in local government, both in this city and elsewhere. The Bill should be thrown out lock, stock and barrel, and with it should go the three incompetents, the three people who have prostituted themselves from the Conservative Benches in putting it forward. I hoped, as we went through, to see something better from the Ministers. I have been sadly disappointed. They deserve the ignominy that they will get from masterminding the Bill through Parliament. It will do nothing for their reputations, and I am glad of that; and it will do nothing for local government in London, and I am very sad about that.
We will fight the Bill all the way. I am quite prepared to defy this law, because I believe that it is bad law. It is law which infringes civil liberties and personal freedom, and anyone who is half a person should stand up and say that this law must be defied because it threatens the freedoms of us all.

Sir Ian Percival: It is very natural that one's views about this Bill should be coloured by one's views on whether these county councils should be abolished, and of course there is a clear division between the Labour party and ourselves on that issue. I am not


nearly so clear about the position of the Liberal party, because in my part of the country, where the proposed abolition of the Merseyside county council is very popular, and rightly so, the alliance parties not only support that decision but claim to be responsible for it. But that is not the issue before the House today. The issue before us, as we have been reminded, is this Bill and what is it.

Mr. Wareing: In view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's undoubted knowledge, will he tell us where his evidence is—it certainly is not proven by the polls—for saying that the overwhelming majority of people on Merseyside have indicated in any way whatsoever that they are against the Merseyside county council? Is it from industry or the churches?

Sir Ian Percival: The hon. Gentleman puts words into my mouth. I did not say anything like what he attributes to me, but I know the feelings in my own constituency, which is an important and substantial part of the county, and I can tell him that what I have said is very true in relation to my own constituency. That may be why the Liberals there are claiming to be responsible for this decision, whereas of course they are not: it is a decision of my Government and one of which I am proud. But that is not the issue before the House today. As you, Mr. Speaker, have pointed out, the only subject for this debate is the contents of the Bill. It is all mechanics; it is all practical. The Bill is not perfect, and I am glad that my right hon. and hon. Friends have been able to give assurances that they will take heed of what has been said about some of the mechanics and see whether they can be improved. That is the purpose of the debate in this House.
Only one point of principle has been raised, and that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon). I would like to draw the attention of the House to the very measured terms in which he made the point even though everyone knows that he feels as strongly about that point as any Member in any part of the House. We have had to listen to some very extravagant terms in the course of the debate. I think that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about a "constitutional abuse of the process of the House". What nonsense. There is a point for serious consideration, but we do not get serious consideration of it by describing it in such extravagant terms.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is a pity that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and all his hon. Friends in the Liberal and Social Democratic parties, with one noble and late exception, are not here to hear his remarks?

Sir Ian Percival: I do not think that I will be tempted into that. I want to get on with the things that I want to say. But I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Gentleman has just said.
For goodness sake, let us avoid indulging in such extravagant terms as "constitutional abuse of the process of the House". The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Tony Banks), who has just spoken and has already left, used phrases such as "totally indefensible in constitutional terms" and "an intellectual insult to the House". That is no way to discuss serious points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes made the one serious point that arises in the Bill. He recognized

that we must have transitional provisions. Of course we must. It would be irresponsible not to have them. Therefore, the question arises what should be done about the governing of the councils in the last short period of their existence. The Government have decided on. the provisions in the Bill. No one would suggest that they are perfect, but no one has come up with any answer that can be described as perfect.

Mr. Allen McKay: Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that it is necessary anyway? Why could not the terms of the existing councillors be extended?

Sir Ian Percival: That is an alternative way of covering the transitional period. No doubt all the alternatives have been considered. However, in the end the Government have to decide which one to adopt.
Yes, there is a question of principle involved, but I happen to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, for I do not believe that that question of principle is such as to rule out the practical attractions of taking the course proposed. I have followed the arguments as best I could. I say "as best I could" because so often they have been obscured by over-flowery and extravagant language. Nevertheless, while fully recognising the sincerity of my hon. Friend's view, I hold a different one. I believe that the practical necessities justify what is being done.
Parliamentary debate on this measure is not finished. It is part of our constitutional process that the Bill will go to another place to be further debated. No doubt much will be said on this point in that House and no doubt we shall all listen to it—

Mr. Tom Cox: The right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to the other place, but he totally ignores the electorate who, given the opportunity, would have left the Government and this House in no doubt about their total condemnation of the Bill. What does he say about their rights?

Sir Ian Percival: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is arrogant in suggesting that I have totally ignored that. I have been in this House for a long time and I am well aware of the rights of electors. I have made it my business to protect them to the best of my ability over a substantial number of years. I am well aware of that part of the argument.
However, at the end of the day, having weighed all the arguments, the Government have to take a decision. It is a luxury to be able to sit clown, or even to stand up, and make the sort of observations that the hon. Gentleman and others have made. A Government ultimately have to decide how in practice they will implement what they have pledged themselves to do. That is how I see this requirement. I am satisfied by the argument that I have heard at present that there is no question of principle here sufficient to outweigh the practical necessities of the situation.
Let us not forget that the Government are pledged to do this and must therefore do so in the most orderly way possible. Before I gave way to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) I was saying that there will he further discussions in another place. I hope that we shall all listen to what is said there; I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will. But: for the moment I hope that the House,


in discussing the measure, will concentrate on what is really the one question of principle and will do so in rather more measured tones than I have listened to. We owe it to those whom we represent to do that rather than to mislead them by such extravagant phrases as those I have referred to. And, again, I support my right hon. Friend's proposals.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: If the last 25 hours of debate have identified anything, it is that the Bill is an extremely bad one. It paves the way only to uncertainty and confusion. So far, the House has been denied detailed proposals about how services will be run after 31 March 1986. The White Paper, Cmnd. 9063, which should perhaps be renamed "Strangling the Cities", is vague. The responses to the White Paper, submitted by over 5,000 organisations and individuals, have been suppressed by the Government.
The 4 May statement by the Secretary of State has added ambiguity to the outline proposals. For example, we are now unsure whether the police service is to be broken up between 36 metropolitan district councils or is to be run by six joint boards. I suspect that the Government have set themselves the long-term objective of taking direct control of the police service in the metropolitan areas.
The Bill pre-empts the discussion by Parliament of the details of the substantive Bill. It is therefore profoundly anti-democratic. It is an insult not only to the House but to the residents of the metropolitan counties. It takes away their right to vote in the 1985 county council elections, making them second-class citizens in comparison with their neighbours in the shire counties.
When I look at the detail of the Bill I find that nonsense is compounded by yet further nonsense. I have 10 brief points to make on that detail. First, the Bill does not provide for an automatic return to the status quo in the event of the substantive legislation not going through. It could leave us with a permanent transitional council, which is clearly ludicrous. Secondly, clause 2 paves the way to proportional representation. Does that mean that the Secretary of State wants proportional representation introduced elsewhere in our political life? Thirdly, the Bill assumes that half as many members as are to be found at present on the metropolitan county councils could run the transitional councils in 1985–86. Does the Secretary of State imagine that the members of the transitional council will be able to devote 100 per cent. of their time to running the county services?
Fourthly, the Bill does not acknowledge the fact that there are metropolitan district councillors employed by the present metropolitan county councils. Presumably these individuals—11 certainly in west Yorkshire—would be debarred from nomination to the transitional council. On 1 April 1986 there would be the anomaly that an employee of a passenger transport joint board in a metropolitan area would be unable to stand for election as a councillor in his or her county area, whereas in a neighbouring shire county an equivalent employee in the public transport function would be allowed that right. The right is to become a privilege available only to those who live in shire counties.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I am very interested in the coherent and cogent arguments which the hon. Gentleman is giving to the House. Will he tell us whose letter he is reading out?

Mr. Lofthouse: I am reading no one's letter out. I am reading from the brief that I have compiled from what I have gathered together over the past few weeks. I do not need other people to provide me with letters to read out. If the valid points that I am making are accepted and considered by the Secretary of State, my speech tonight will have been well worth while. If he is to speak tonight, he will have the benefit of the full information which I am providing.
The fifth point—after that useless intervention—is that the members of transitional councils will not be directly elected. In west Yorkshire it is possible that none of the seven nominees from Wakefield metropolitan district council will be drawn from my constituency. It is therefore unlikely that the problems of my constituency will be properly catered for.
The sixth point is that the Bill takes no account of the existing pressure on the time of metropolitan district councillors. It is difficult to imagine that any district councillor worth his salt will be able to find the time to serve on a transitional council as well as finding the time to deal properly with his metropolitan district council responsibilities.
The seventh point is that the Bill, as well as abolishing the 1985 elections, paves the way to the permanent diminution of the rights of metropolitan county electors. They are to be denied in future the right to vote on police manning levels, fire service budgets or public transport policies.
Eighthly, schedule 1, specifying the number of councillors to be nominated to each of the transitional councils, does not reflect review work carried out by the boundary commission. Does the Secretary of State have so little time and regard for the endeavours of the boundary commission?
Ninthly, the members of transitional councils are to be recallable at will. This is totally unworkable. It means that each metropolitan district council will mandate its nominees to vote according to the policies and objectives of that district, ignoring any county perspectives. What a disastrous prospect.
My last point is that the proposed duty of officers to provide information is excessively onerous. It places them in an impossible position, caught between loyalty to an employer who is sensitive and responsive to local circumstances, and the demands of an uncomprehending Whitehall. Are all metropolitan county council employees to end up suffering from schizophrenia?
Returning to the central issue, I should like to ask why all this nonsense is necessary. West Yorkshire metropolitan county council is an efficient and well-run authority. It has kept its precept down. It has forged good working relations with the metropolitan district councils. It should be noted that not one West Yorkshire metropolitan district councillor has come out in support of the Government's proposal. Relations with local business are good. Let me refer to a response to the Government's White Paper, Cmnd. 9063, to which I have already referred, made by the Leeds chamber of commerce and industry:
The Chamber has great respect for the politicians of both parties who have led the West Yorkshire County Council and the


Local Authority Officers who have exercised its policies. The Chamber has often opposed or sought to amend those policies but whatever the issue, the County Council has made a genuine effort to consult business interests, and has been open about its intentions and as a result of consultation has amended its policies on a number of occasions.
Local organisations have been strong in their criticism of the Government's proposals. The president of the Leeds chamber of commerce and industry, James Johnson, said on the radio:
We don't want to see the abolition without more facts. We don't want to see industry and commerce picking up the bill for the abolition of the Metropolitan Councils … the Government hasn't really provided us with any costings of what the ultimate cost will be.
In its response to the Government's proposals, the Bradford chamber of commerce says:
The Bradford Chamber of Commerce cannot support the abolition of the Metropolitan County Councils as proposed by the Government but it does support an independent inquiry of the present two-tier system, followed by a thorough review and debate before any decision is made.
Surely any Government should be obliged to take the actions suggested by the Bradford chamber of commerce.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can he confirm that the South Yorkshire county council sent letters to all Labour Members of Parliament admonishing them for their lack of attendance on this Committee and during previous legislative procedures on the Bill? What does the hon. Gentleman think those county councils must have felt about the disgraceful lack of attendance by Labour Members last night?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that we must relate the Third Reading to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Lofthouse: As I am not a South Yorkshire county councillor, I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question.
Kirklees and Wakefield chamber of commerce said in its response:
The discussion of the Government's proposals for streamlining the cities closed with members of this Chamber expressing considerable reservations about the proposals and with support for an independent inquiry followed by full and detailed consultation and debate before proceeding.
Rod Thomas, spokesman for the West Yorkshire branch of the Police Federation, has described the Secretary of State's proposal to hand police powers over to metropolitan district councils in the following terms:
It would defeat the whole object of what happened in '68 when the first amalgamation of the police service took place and then again in '74 when the West Yorkshire Metropolitan Police was brought into being and we've just now got a good efficient working unit and that's what West Yorkshire wants to keep and I think it will be a retrograde step to go back to the old system.
Those are the comments of independent bodies. They have expressed their views on the Bill that we have been debating all these hours. None of those bodies has any vested interest; they are simply expressing an honest opinion.
In an opinion survey carried out on 7 April, Leeds polytechnic discovered a high level of local satisfaction with the police, fire and public transport services, all of which are run by the county council. Of those interviewed, 85 per cent. were in favour of West Yorkshire Metro's fares policy. The British Road Federation, one of the Government's allies, described the county council's present highways programme as

a realistic attempt to ensure that the limited funds available are directed to those proposals which represent value for money.
I turn to one of the smaller services. The local Yorkshire and Humberside area office of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has declared its worry
that if the Metropolitan Counties are dismantled some District Councils may not be able to find enough resources to maintain trading standards services at their present level.
On countryside and recreation, the chairman of the Huddersfield canal society has written to the Secretary of State saying:
I would like to put on record our concern over the proposed abolition of the Metropolitan County Councils.
The director of the Yorkshire and Humberside tourist board has said:
With the present constraints on District Councils, it is out of the question for them to make up a loss that would follow abolition of the metropolitan counties.
While there are many other expressions of support and concern, I turn to the public opinion survey carried out by Leeds polytechnic, to summarise the position. It says that 70 per cent. of the people in west Yorkshire want to see the county council maintained in its present form, or strengthened. But where is the mandate for that in the Government's proposals?
Many of the local organisations concerned about the Government's White Paper have pressed for a proper balance sheet of the costs and benefits of the proposals to be prepared, or for an inquiry to be held. That is the only sensible way forward. Why are the Government denying that option to people living in the metropolitan counties? It must be that a full benefits study would reveal that their true motive is political spite. There is no doubt that the Government's decision to introduce the Bill arises merely from political dogma to have what they see as revenge on certain leaders of metropolitan councils in recent years, and on the leader of the Greater London council. No valid argument in favour of the Bill has come forward during the past 25 or 26 hours. The Government should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for taking away from 18 million people the right to cast their votes to decide on the membership of their local authorities.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: This debate reminds me of a pop song which includes the line, "Around and around and around they go again." In other words, everything that we have heard in the Third Reading debate has been said time and again in Committee. I do not blame Labour Members for repeating their criticisms; it is their proper duty to oppose Government legislation — even when they agree with it. However, the likelihood of their doing that successfully in respect of this Bill is fairly remote. From the hyperbole—or overstatement — put into their attack, the impression may have been given that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a trades union leader proposing to call a general strike without first balloting his members. The Bill contains interim provisions which have effect only during the 10 months —[Interruption.] If Labour Members wish to intervene in my speech, they may do so, but if they continue to shout that will make the debate more difficult.

Mr. Barron: I do not wish to digress from the subject of the debate, but will the hon. Gentleman comment on


the fact that under the Bill next year thousands of people in south Yorkshire will be denied the right to vote for county councillors?

Sir Nicolas Bonsor: That is typical of the misrepresentations about the effect of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman's constituents will be affected by it, and so will mine; I speak as a Member of Parliament for the Greater London area. But to talk about denying people a vote is wholly misleading. They will be able to vote for their Member of Parliament and for their local councillors. Again, they may vote for the people who will represent their interests in the interim council which is being set up. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. There is no point in Opposition Members saying no from a sedentary position. [AN HON. MEMBER: "You are misleading the House."] I am not misleading the House; the hon. Gentleman should explain how he believes that I am doing that. People will elect those who will represent their interests.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I was afraid that he might digress so much from his course that he would mislead us. The hon. Gentleman seems to have failed to realise that those in the borough councils elected in 1982 had not the slightest clue that they would suddenly be thrust into running the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils. That is the fraud that is being perpetrated in the Bill.

Sir Nicolas Bonsor: Here we go again, with the usual overstatements from the hon. Gentleman. I agree that we are dealing with interim provisions for a period of 10 months, during which something will have to be done. The Government faced three options. First, they could have asked for new elections. I am sure that most Opposition Members will have the intellectual honesty to admit that calling for new elections and asking people to put themselves forward for election to a body that is to last for less than 10 months would have been a thoroughly unsatisfactory solution.
The second alternative was to let the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Greater London council remain for a further year, but that would not have been any more democratic than the solution proposed, because the hon. Gentleman and his friends have run out of time. They were elected to serve for four years. That period will have elapsed and, speaking as someone who is entitled to vote in these elections, I would have been unlikely to support the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had I been voting in their constituencies. I am sure that I am not alone in that feeling about London. So it would have been at least as unrepresentative of the democratic desire in those constituencies, and areas which Greater London councillors represnt as if they had had their term artificially extended for a further three months, which was proposed as the better alternative.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman answer two questions? He said that if elections had taken place, the election would have been for only 10 months. He makes a presumption about the ultimate fate of the metropolitan counties. That is still in the balance, because the Bill has to be debated in the other place and because other legislation has to be enacted. Will he cast his mind

back to local government reorganisation in the 1970s? There were elections in my area in 1972 for councillors to continue in office for only two years. I agree that there is a difference between 10 months and two years, but what times does the hon. Gentleman consider adequate? We are resorting to an odd principle of democracy if the period has to lie between 10 months and 24 months.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: To answer the second point raised by the hon. Gentleman, most people would agree that it is highly undesirable to ask people to put themselves forward, to take on what for many candidates would be a new job, for only 10 months. The hon. Gentleman is of course entitled to disagree with that.
My point is that the attack on this proposal as a constitutional affront is a gross over-statement. While no one would pretend that the solution reached is perfect, it is none the less justifiable and it does the most to defend the interests of those who are currently governed by the GLC but who will in future be governed by local councillors who will take over most of the GLC's present powers. What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing is justifiable and the attacks upon the Bill are grossly over-stated.

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, at least in relation to Greater London, despite the various reorganisations of local government that have occurred this century, there has been no example of the interim arrangements for any area actually changing political control by Government decision?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I certainly would, but that is no argument for saying that because something has never been done it should not be done now. The hon. Gentleman suggests that, because something has not been done in the past, it must not be done in the future. I do not agree.
There are two criticisms of the Bill which I ask my right hon. Friend to consider closely. One was mentioned in Committee. I recall that my right hon. Friend was not present for that part of the debate. One of his Ministers was, but I ask him to look closely at this personally, if he has not already done so. I refer to clause 2(5), in which he provides for the body that will take over the GLC to strike a balance of representation in circumstances in which to do so would often be impossible. Legislation which lays duties that cannot possibly be fulfilled must have been badly drafted and deserves a second look.
I wish to make a second point in equal detail with regard to clause 3(1). The fact that councillors can be instantly removed by their councils and replaced by other councillors turn them from representatives into delegates. We in this country have a system of representation, not of delegation, and I believe that it is a dangerous step for us to allow people to be sent as representatives but under the direction of those who send them to that forum so that, if councillors as a whole disagree with the independent judgment of their representative, they can dismiss and replace him. That concept is alien to what we do in the House and our local councils, and I find it wholly abhorrent. I hope that we will find other ways of attacking it.
Most of the criticisms of the Bill have not come from Opposition Members. The most powerful criticisms came from my right hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge, South-East (Mr. Pym), for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) and for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)


and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon). [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they now?"] That is a very good question, and I was about to raise it myself, especially with regard to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, because I very much regret the terms in which he attacked the Government's legislation in the Bill.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has informed his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) of his intention to make a personal attack on him in that way, but he should know that his right hon. Friend is carrying out an extremely extensive campaign on behalf of his party in the Euro-elections. His effort has been much greater than that of almost any other Conservative Member.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for standing up for my right hon. Friend, but I am sure that he is capable of standing up for himself. My remark was not a criticism but a comment. I regret his absence here, because I wanted to say something about the way in which he attacked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, once his own colleague in his own Cabinet. He attacked him by calling the measure a dictatorial act and saying that it was an unjustifiable interference by central Government with liberties. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup led the Conservative party into a prices and incomes policy which I found wholly abhorrent to Conservative principles. That policy interfered far more with independent liberty than anything that is proposed in the Bill. I found the whole tenor of his attack on the Bill and the Secretary of State most regrettable and wholly without merit.
Finally, in supporting the Bill with the reservations that I have expressed, I hope that the main Bill which is to follow it will be published and that great consideration will be given to its detail, because one of the unhappy aspects of our present position is that the long-term future of London still remains in doubt. I hope that we will shortly be able to publish and discuss the long-term provisions which will come in when the present Bill expires.

Mr. Chris Smith: One of my distinguished predecessors in the House some 100 years ago was William Torrens who was the Member of Parliament for Finsbury. He had the misfortune of mistakenly belonging to the Liberal party but apart from that he had the privilege of representing the people of Finsbury. He spoke in the debate on Second Reading of the London Government Bill on 4 July 1884. I believe that the quotation of his words is apposite, although not exactly so, to the circumstances of our debate today. He said:
Why should the Metropolitan Boroughs be disfranchised against their will? As trustees for a free people Parliament has no right to subject the people of London to the deprivation of local rights and privileges enjoyed by other towns of the country.
I contend that that is what the Bill will do to the people of London. I oppose and reject it because I believe that it is impractical, unworkable and motivated purely by political opportunism rather than by common sense.
I wish to say three things about the Bill. We must remember that it is an unvarnished Bill which has been

through long hours of Committee deliberations and At is unchanged. The first point is that it is, as the colloquial title has it, a paving Bill, which means that it prepares the way for other legislation. However, that legislation is unpublished, unknown and largely undecided. 'The Government are taking the breathtaking step not just of abolishing elections and changing the political control of councils, but of doing it in advance of our knowing what the subsequent legislation will be. That makes this a much more serious proposition than Conservative Members, and especially the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), have tried to make out.
Of course the Government could easily have got round the problem. They could have introduced the Bill at precisely the same time as they bring forward the equally unpleasant measures for the abolition of the metropolitan authorities, but they chose not to. For some reason best known to themselves, they are choosing to bring forward the Bill before any of us — and, I suspect, even themselves — know what the legislation will contain. That is significant.
Secondly, the Bill is a recipe for administrative chaos, as its contents and the number of detailed powers which it gives the Secretary of State show. For example, it gives him power to determine the quorum of a meeting of the joint board. It gives him power to direct officers of constituent councils and of the present metropolitan counties, including the GLC, to provide him with information. It gives him power to decide not to proceed with a series of different enterprises which at the moment are under way. It places other very onerous duties on him and his civil servants. We could justifiably ask the Secretary of State whether he has decided what the implementation of the Bill will add to the work load of his Department and what it will cost the public purse.
Has the Secretary of State further considered the impact on present local authorities and on the joint boards of the requirements in the Bill to provide information, matters that have been debated at some length in Committee? There is bound to be difficulty and indecision for the council officers concerned. An enormous amount of time and effort for local government officers will be wasted, and the smooth running of local government will be interrupted.
However, the disruption will come not just from that but from the fact that people in some areas will have three different administrations governing them over 12 months. That is shown by the example of the Inner London education authority. Happily, it will end up as a directly elected authority, but it will have two other different forms of administration in the lead-up to the direct elections.
The operation of the Bill will lead to chaotic administration, and people in the areas that the Bill covers will not be governed well as a result. The Government should have considered that before coming forward with these over-hasty measures to provide them with a lead-in to their proposed legislation.
There is a third and more fundamental objection. The first objection is that the Bill prejudges unknown legislation, and the second is that it is impractical, unworkable and will cause administrative chaos.
The third objection—much the most important—is that the real reason for introducing this legislation is not that the Government want to abolish elections, not even that they are desperately anxious to abolish the metropolitan counties and the GLC, but that they are


frightened of fighting those elections. They do not want to put to the people of London and the metropolitan counties the major issues of how they should be governed and how the strategic planning for their areas should be undertaken. The Government know, as all hon. Members know in their hearts, that if those issues were debated in an election campaign in 1985, as is at present planned, the Government's case would fall and they would be defeated in the polls.

Mr. Leigh: Would another reason for this legislation be that the Government want to devolve more powers to boroughs, just as 100 years ago progressive Conservatives believed, not in the LCC, but in giving power to the vestries—the local people? Ultimately, that is what this Bill will achieve.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman has completely ignored the argument. If he wants a debate about how much power should be devolved to individuals, neighbourhoods, boroughs or cities, I should be glad to take part in such a debate, and there are, of course, various powers, services and services at each level. Surely what is important is that the people affected should have the right to decide what happens to them, who should provide the services and what those services should be.

Mr. Tracey: I believe that the hon. Gentleman was once a member of a local authority, so I trust that he had some concern for the ratepayers. Does he agree that to spend £3·5 million—that, I gather, would be the cost of electing councillors for 11 months—would be grossly profligate, and certainly would not be welcomed by ratepayers? Is that what he is suggesting?

Mr. Smith: I am not suggesting that at all. I do not propose that constituent councillors should be abolished. What the hon. Gentleman says prejudges legislation that has yet to be published and to come to the House.
I heard a chance remark of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) on Second Reading, during a Division. I happened to be standing next to him, while we were milling around the Floor of the House, and when someone mentioned democracy, he said, "Democracy is the rule of the majority". That is what democracy means to him. That is not what it means to me. Democracy means the right to representation for everyone, including minorities — not just a decision by Conservative Members that "We, as the Conservative party, have won a general election. We have decided to do this, and we shall bludgeon it through, no matter what the people affected by this legislation may think about it".
This legislation is not just about the abolition of elections; it is about the abolition of the right to a voice by people in London and the metropolitan counties, and—more than that—it is about the abolition of the right to have creative dissent and discussion in our communities and our nation. That, surely, is something that we, as a Parliament, should foster and not squeeze, as the Government seek to do through this nasty and objectionable Bill.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I am glad that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has returned to the Chamber. I

am aware that banter from both sides of the House forms part of our debates, but the personal abuse by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West was very much out of court and I deplored it.

Mr. Corbyn: You are abusing 18 million people.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The other comment of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West gave even more concern. I am aware that some hon. Members get more emotionally carried away than others, but last night and today that hon. Gentleman exhorted his fellow Members to defy the law. I feel extremely sad when I hear such a comment from an hon. Member. I have been in local government since 1968. I always understood that the House of Commons made the law, and that we in local government operated within that law. That is fundamental. It is the worst possible form of anarchy when hon. Members exhort their colleagues to defy that law if they do not like it.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Was the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber last night when we discussed the Greater London development plan and heard that the Secretary of State was breaking the law by not implementing changes to that plan as a court had requested? Does the hon. Gentleman deplore the Secretary of State's action?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I was present for about 80 per cent. of last night's debate as the records of the votes taken will show. I regret that I was not present at the time to which the hon. Gentleman refers, so I cannot comment.
Most Back Benchers who have spoken in the debate are directly involved in constituencies covered by the metropolitan authorities and the GLC. However, it is not their sole preserve. Whether we like it or not, the totality of public expenditure, of which local government is a part, affects us all. Hon. Members whose constituencies are not directly covered by the Bill are nonetheless affected, as are their constituents.
What I like about the Bill is its principle of a return to single-tier authorities. It paves the way for a substantive measure that will return about 36 authorities to what we in the shires understand as county boroughs. That is dear to my heart. The city of Nottingham contains about 280,000 people and after the substantive Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, that city will be larger than more than half of those independent boroughs. Our city, a district council, provides 50 per cent. of the total precept of the county authority. I believe that that relationship between first and second-tier authorities highlights one of the reasons why I, and perhaps the majority of hon. Members, believe that we are doing the right thing in paving the way to abolish the second-tier authorities. Indeed, we had clear evidence today that it was part of the Labour party's manifesto to move towards single-tier authorities. That was also the alliance platform for the general election. I scratch my head in wonderment at what the hysteria of the past 24 hours has been about.
Emerging from the objections of the Opposition has been the idea of a challenge to democratic rights. To most business people I know, that would seem like a sick joke in connection with local democracy and local rates. One has to say the obvious — [Interruption.] I wonder whether the children on the Opposition Benches would kindly allow an hon. Member a small moment — [Interruption.] Hon. Members—I was about to call them hon. children, but I beg their pardon for that—

Mr. Speaker: We should proceed in order. May I remind the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) that many hon. Gentlemen wish to take part in the debate, and that such remarks take up our time.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.
Simple facts have to be stated time and again because they are constantly forgotten. It is true that the electorate has a 100 per cent. share in the elected council, but it has only a 25 per cent. of the liability raising local taxes. In many areas only 25 per cent. of that 25 per cent. pay full local taxes. That produces the strange formula of a quarter of a quarter—a kind of Boston tea party stood on its head. I do not suggest that only those who pay rates should have a vote—far from it. However, we should recognise the present imbalance in local government and the way that it raises its taxes. We must be more careful when we use the term "local democracy".
Earlier the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) called from a seated position, "What about transport?", as if that would prove an insurmountable problem. My local district council runs one of the largest bus fleets in the country, serving the areas of five district councils. I see no earthly reason why bus undertakings elsewhere cannot operate as efficiently as the Nottingham undertaking. A transport undertaking need not be run by a metropolitan authority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Whitfield) claimed that his experience was that of a ratepayer. I did not join in the laughter and sneers from the Opposition Benches. Sadly, we keep forgetting that the ratepayers pay the wages of all local authorities. In effect, they also pay our wages. That must not be forgotten.
Finally, I should like to come to the defence of a friend, as a result of a remark made last night during a discussion on the difficulty of getting information from officers. It was suggested that officers would not give the required information. An hon. Member—the House will forgive me if I cannot recall his constituency—suggested that the chief executive of Liverpool, Mr. Ray O'Brien, would not be able to co-operate with Mr. Hatton. I know Mr. O'Brien well, because he was the chief executive of Nottinghamshire county council. He has faithfully and professionally served authorities of both colours. The remarks last night about officers not co-operating with councillors were a slur on the profession. I hope that the hon. Gentleman concerned will withdraw those remarks.

8 pm

Mr. William O'Brien: I wish to respect Mr. Speaker's call that we should keep to the spirit of the Bill. I intend to do that and also to be brief.
I wish to take up the points raised by two Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) expressed pleasure that the Bill will abolish the two-tier system and that the one-tier system will come into operation. However, that is not so. In some areas, local government will still have a two-tier system, whatever happens to the Bill.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Whitfield) expressed concern about the 1974 reorganisation of local government. In an intervention, I reminded the hon. Gentleman of the county functions at that time and I mentioned the West Riding county council.
In other words, two Conservative Members expressed the view that the Bill will abolish the two-tier system. Do

Government Members know what the Bill means? The speeches of some hon. Gentlemen make us doubt whether they are aware of the Bill's consequences. It is dangerous for Government to change laws or introduce legislation when they do not fully realise the consequences of their decisions. I therefore ask right hon. and hon. Members to think very carefully when they vote on the measure.
The real reason for the Bill is not that the Government believe that the metropolitan county councils and the GLC are unwieldy, uneconomic or do not work properly. It is because several years ago a promise was made to ratepayers that domestic rates would be abolished. Since then the Prime Minister in particular, and the Government in general, accepted that they cannot deliver that promise. The Government therefore are introducing legislation as an appeasement to the ratepayers; they will abolish the large-spending authorities — the metropolitan county councils and the GLC. That is the real reason behind the Bill.
The most important feature of the Bill—and of local government—is finance. Those who have spoken in the debate have highlighted my belief that finance lies at the heart of the matter. Indeed, a former Secretary of State for the Environment—before the 1983 general election—promised that the ratepayers would benefit from substantial savings if such legislation were introduced. The bedrock of the Bill is finance. The explanatory and financial memorandum states:
Clause 9 enables a borough or district council to object at the audit of the GLC/MCC accounts and to bring a court action under section 19 or 20 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982.
It is thus proposed to give the London boroughs and the districts the power to challenge the accounts of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. That power has hitherto been given only to local government electors—the ratepayers — and is provided in the Local Government Acts of 1933 and 1972 and the Local Government Finance Act 1982. The Bill does not ensure that the provision will come to an end if the abolition proposals fail to be approved by Parliament— a point that I hope Conservative Members will bear in mind.
It is proposed to give the metropolitan districts and the London boroughs the power—and yet not to give the shire districts a corresponding power—to challenge the accounts of the shire county councils. Yet the shire county precept generally forms a greater percentage of the shire district rate levy than the MCC precept does of the metropolitan district rate levy. That is a most important point. The great fundamental for which Ministers and Conservative Members argue will apply only in the MCC and GLC areas—the dogma is being applied only to them—and not in the shire counties. A political bias is involved. Furthermore, I repeat that the provision is without precedent because historically the right of challenge has been given only to local government electors.
The main financial consideration for a ratepayer is the total amount that he is required to pay, which is made up of the MCC or GLC precept plus the rate raised by the district or borough for its own purposes. If it is in the district or borough council's interests to ensure that the MCC or GLC precept is restrained, equally it is in the interests of the MCC or the GLC to see that the district or borough does not make excessive demands.
The purpose of one of the Opposition's amendments was to give reciprocal rights of challenge to the MCCs and the GLC and thus to place them on an equal footing with the district and borough councils. I am sure that many hon. Members—and, indeed, the ratepayers—would accept that our approach to local government finance was a fair one. I make my comments on the basis of 30 years' service in local government and an interest in local government finance generally. The justification for the powers conferred upon boroughs by clause 9 is that they apparently provide a safeguard against actions by the GLC which would create problems for successive authorities. That is what the Bill provides.
There is no apparent foundation for any fears of such actions, and, anyway, existing law already provides safeguards through audit and through the courts. If those safeguards are considered by the Secretary of State, or the Government, to be inadequate, they should be reviewed for the whole of local government, and not only for the GLC and the metropolitan county councils.
The proposals would have the effect of setting one elected public authority against another, both being funded by London ratepayers or ratepayers in the counties. They would use the money of the same ratepayers to finance the pursuance of any conflict. Bearing in mind the unrestrained powers that clause 7(2) would confer on boroughs to require information from the GLC, it is clear that any borough so inclined could bring about a costly process of dispute on numerous individual items of expenditure, and would tie up vast personal resources in the process.
Unless the Secretary of State brings forward some proposals to avoid the divisions that can be generated between two local authorities, I can see, as I said yesterday, untold difficulties arising between local authorities as a result of the Bill.
The proposals seem to be designed to maximise the chance of a councillor being disqualified or surcharged to an extent that would not apply in any other local authority. Elected members of the GLC and the metropolitan counties will have to carry out their duties while being exposed to a degree of personal risk that councillors elsewhere will not suffer. The duty to consult the boroughs before the 1985–86 budget is totally unnecessary. The GLC has an established process of wide consultation, with all interested parties—not simply the boroughs—and will follow it again voluntarily this year.
The procedures in clause 9(2), (3) and (4) of the Bill are wholly unnecessary, as the GLC has already published a consultation document on its budget for 1984–85, and proposes to do so again for 1985–86. In previous years, the document has been sent to borough councils, chambers of commerce, voluntary organistations and other public bodies, and any interested individuals. There is no chance that the practice will not be followed, so the Secretary of State must either be ignorant of the GLC's procedure, or have some further unspecified action in mind.
There is a great deal of financial uncertainty and mystery shrouded in the provisions of the Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State will lift the shroud and clear the mystery at present embodied in the Bill.
Finally, I refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury—he is not in his seat, but I am sure that he will read Hansard. He said that the electorate in his

constituency is not aware of the present arrangements in local government—it did not know who all its county councillors were, for instance. I do not accept that outlook and philosophy. A large part of the former Dewsbury constituency is in my constituency, and the former Dewsbury constituents who are now in Normanton are fully aware of what is happening in local government. They are awake to what is taking place, and have an interest in their own communities and destinies.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to the reforms proposed by the Liberals in the last election, and—for the first time in a 26-hour debate during which he had objected strongly to the Bill — admitted that it was Liberal policy to abolish the county councils, as the Tories are proposing to do. There is no difference between the philosophy of the alliance parties and the Conservatives. The only defence of local government comes from the main Opposition party.
I hope that all hon. Members will give strong support to the proposals of the Labour party, and will oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

Sir John Osborn: My constituents, like those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival), expect me to be here to support and welcome not only the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, but the main Bill. They are desperate to see such a measure on the statute book. My constituents, and for that matter many people in isolated parts of south Yorkshire, look to me as the only Conservative Member of Parliament among some 14 to 17 seats in the area to give them hope for the future. They will respect the fact that the House is taking such a long time in debating and supporting this Bill.
Many people — particularly those living in my constituency—feel that, over the years, they have been unfairly victimised in one way or another by the county council or perhaps by the city council. Sometimes there has been confusion. When a gipsy site came out to Lodgemoor in the west end of Sheffield, such people did not know where to turn. They did not know whether the problem should be dealt with by the county council or the city council.
When it came to road maintenance, they looked to the city council, but found that, while the threats came from city councillors, the resposibility lay largely with the county council. The threat was to cut it down in Hallam. Now the teachers have chosen not to attend the schools in Hallam, although they are attending other schools elsewhere in Sheffield and South Yorkshire. That is what is hurting my constituents at the moment.
This debate will ensure that Conservatives in Hallam will appreciate that the Government have finally done something since 1979. My constituents have pressed me to persuade the Government to show that they mean business. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting my right hon. Friend and this measure this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Whitfield) said that he represented the ratepayers. As most of the ratepayers in Sheffield, let alone South Yorkshire, come from my constituency, I think that I can claim the same representation.
The management of local government has presented problems for some time. When the present Secretary of State for Energy, my right hon. Friend the Member for


Worcester (Mr. Walker), was Secretary of State for the Environment, he followed up the commission chaired by Lord Redcliffe-Maud and the policy committees of the Conservative party. I was well aware of the recommendations of public servants, officials, and civil servants that gave rise to the 1972 Act. Of course, any change in Government does give rise to controversy, as those who were in the House at that time are aware.
However, it must be realised that the two-tier system in metropolitan counties has consistently been opposed by Socialist councillors in the district councils. When the Act came into operation, a resolution was passed by the Sheffield city council condemning the setting up of the South Yorkshire county council. In the early years there was conflict between Socialist councillors in the city council and Socialist councillors in the county council. So let us not forget that what my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester put in was heavily criticised by Socialists on Sheffield city council some 10 years ago.

Mr. Harrison: One of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman is referring was that under the 1972 legislation councillors in that area were being denuded of their powers and responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman knows that Sheffield was an all-purpose area, and it was being denuded. It suited the Conservative Government's purpose. [Interruption.] Do you want to get in, Roy?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The right hon. Gentleman must get on with his intervention.

Mr. Harrison: I did not intend to intervene. I was prompted.

Sir John Osborn: I thought that I was being asked to give way. I shall now continue with what I have to say.
At the time of that change in 1972 public officials gave cause for concern. I remember the problems facing my late right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, Sir Graham Page. To the chagrin of many Conservative councillors, local officials took advantage of that change. Therefore, any local government change presents the Government of the day with problems. My recollection is of growing muddle and confusion, at the taxpayer's and the ratepayer's expense, in the metropolitan councils for that reason.
This Bill makes a start. I shall not touch too extensively on whether there should be new elections next year, whether the existing councils should have gone on for 11 months or whether, as has been decided, it would be better to have district shadow authorities. But it should be pointed out that even now — in South Yorkshire for instance—the same people are both county councillors and district councillors. Therefore, the caretaker provisions can be handled by people who have served for many years in both the main parties in both places.

Mr. Roy Mason: Since this Bill to abolish the metropolitan councils was introduced, there has been a request, both from within the House and by many independent bodies outside, for an independent inquiry into the validity of the Government's argument that there will be cost savings. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not agree to that, and why did the Government not agree to it?

Sir John Osborn: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for intervening. As regards cost savings, he should have seen

the letters that I have received and have had to send on to Ministers about the waste of ratepayers' money in South Yorkshire on the publicity campaign opposing this measure. Notices are to be put up in South Yorkshire about a nuclear-free zone—

Mr. Mason: Answer the question.

Sir John Osborn: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my speech. He can make his own contribution after this.
In Committee last night alliance Members gave many examples, not confined to South Yorkshire and Sheffield, of the ruling party not allowing the opposition into key committees. All that is disastrous. On top of that, South Yorkshire has pursued a disastrous transport policy. I shall simplify it as follows. Income has been static at about £15 million ever since the South Yorkshire county council was set up. It meets costs of about £75 million a year. The transport support grant and the ratepayers have to make up the difference.
For 10 years, until last spring, I have had to persuade desperate citizens that reforms to reverse the 1972 Act should not be pushed forward too urgently because any new measure must be allowed to settle down. The greatest pressure has come from industrialists, the local CBI and chambers of commerce. When the Prime Minister stated in the Conservative manifesto that South Yorkshire county council would be abolished, my election campaign became easier because so many people expected to learn of some message of hope from a Conservative Government who were standing for re-election.
Reference has been made to my right hon. Friends the Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). They have dealt with the legal niceties of the decision that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made. Time and again he has pointed to the precedent of the London Government Act 1963 and the Local Government Act 1972.
My Conservative supporters, who are paying the bills, accept that there are niceties in democracy, but they feel that a Conservative Government must not use kid gloves in their area or they will have to leave and close up shop. That is largely the result of deliberate Socialist policies. It is not called the Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire for nothing. There has also been duplication and muddle and there have been many examples of that in my own city.
Earlier in this debate it was suggested that if Sir Desmond Plummer had been in charge of the GLC the pressure for this change might not have been so great. If there had been a responsibile, independent — not necessarily Conservative — majority on the South Yorkshire council, with realistic policies, the pressure might not have been so great from politically neutral, perhaps apathetic, business people, such as small shop keepers and retailers—[Interruption.] I find that many people in South Yorkshire do not support the Conservatives as strongly as I would wish, but I shall give reasons for this point of view now.
However, the high cost of public expenditure is driving business people out of the city. That is causing unemployment, and public measures are introduced to


deal with that unemployment. That raises rates and, as rates rise, more businesses are driven out of the area. It is a vicious circle that gives rise to a series of problems that run in parallel. South Yorkshire county council policies add to the burden on the districts in South Yorkshire. Citizens living in my constituency cannot afford to live in their houses and are selling up. The rate of sale of houses has never been higher. Companies cannot afford to stay in business and are therefore desperately hoping for measures that will alleviate the position.
I accept, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is a paving Bill and that I am in danger of talking about the main Bill. This is a paving Bill affecting metropolitan counties. The county shires are one problem;: metropolitan districts and counties are another. They have given rise to duplication and confusion in administration. A start has to be made. What any Government have to do is difficult, but there has been consultation. How do I know that? Councillors, particularly Conservative councillors on county councils, have told me about the documents that have been circulated to them. My right hon. Friend has consulted them.
Local government, particularly its funding, has been out of control for a decade. It was under the Labour Government of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) that the problem in South Yorkshire and Sheffield arose. The trouble is that too many people are living in subsidised housing and travelling on subsidised transport for which someone else pays. Those people, in a community like South Yorkshire, who have to pay for it have had enough. Otherwise they will get out and leave the area. Therefore, I welcome the Bill as a first and definite step in the right direction.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir J. Osborn) for his contribution to the debate. Along with the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), he has put his finger on the real reason why the legislation is before us. He has done the House a great service through his speech. When we talk about the Bill to people outside the House, those millions of people who are desperately looking for work, they ask "What has this to do with our plight?" It has nothing at all to do with that.

Sir John Osborn: rose—

Mr. Wareing: The people outside the House, who are struggling to have decent housing—and there are 29,000 people in Liverpool with housing needs—will say, "You had an all-night sitting in the House. What was that about? Was that about housing needs?"

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): The hon. Gentleman was not here!

Mr. Wareing: I was here. The answer is that our all-night sitting had nothing at all to do with their plight. It was not as if the Secretary of State and his boss, the daughter of darkness in 10 Downing street, woke up one morning and had the idea that services in the local authority areas should be improved. That was not the idea at all. The real reason for the measure, as the hon. Member for Hallam admitted in his speech, relates entirely to party political prejudice and the desire of the extremists who

currently run the Tory party to have bodies appointed by Ministers — the autocrats in this Government — rather than to accept the elective principle for which members of my party and their predecessors have fought for over a century.
We have a Government who prefer to put investment into non-elected bodies, such as the London Docklands Development Corporation or the Merseyside Development Corporation, with no accountability to consumers and no councillors to go to. For example, the Merseyside Development Corporation had, for a couple of years, a director of the International Garden Festival—which I am glad to say is now flourishing.
Sir John Grugeon was appointed as director in February' 1982. It was no coincidence that he happened to have been the former leader of the Tory-led county council in Kent. Those are the sort of people who are brought to Merseyside to tell Merseysiders how to run the area. The irony is that in February 1982 Sir John Grugeon resigned. There were a lot of rumours. The gentleman said that he was sacked, but if he was sacked in February 1982 he was still allowed to draw his full salary until 31 December 1982. One can imagine the outcry there would be from Tories in Merseyside or in London if Ken Livingstone allowed an official who had resigned or been sacked to receive a salary for 10 months after he had been sacked. The people of Merseyside were not able to take the matter up with local councillors. Not a bit of it. We shall have more Sir John Grugeons if the Government have their way.
The Government prefer quangos to democratically elected councils. For the transitional councils there is the question of the numbers. Forty-nine indirectly elected councillors on Merseyside will be expected to deal with the problems which are now being dealt with by 99 directly elected Merseyside county councillors. In an area of great social problems they will be expected to deal with matters that are now the concern of the county council on top of the problems which they were elected to deal with. These councillors have great constituency work loads. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Woodcock) should know Merseyside well enough to realise that every one of us—Members of Parliament and councillors alike in that area — have considerable constituency work loads.
Who will the electors seek out when there are only 49 indirectly elected Merseyside county councillors? Who will the people in the 99 wards go to if they have a problem in relation to highways or waste disposal?
I am pleased because, not only have we had the reactionary speech from the hon. Member for Hallam, but I have been able to listen, for the first time since I came into the House, to the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival). If ever an area owed a lot to Merseyside county council, it is Southport. I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is coming up to retirement age. Until the Labour party took control of Merseyside county council in 1981, the Tory-dominated Sefton district council, alone among the five districts on Merseyside, refused to give concessionary fares to pensioners — not that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be travelling on the buses and ferries on Merseyside. I am sure of that.
The Sefton district council is noted for its miserly attitude. In 1981 I became the chairman of the Merseyside economic development committee and one of my first acts was to offer Sefton district, along with all the other


districts, a place on that committee. It was turned down, because Sefton district was not interested. Yet those are the people who will be represented on the transitional Merseyside county council. Conservative Members may say, "Well, that's because you're a Left-wing Socialist." Not a bit of it! The Tory leader of the Merseyside county council, Neville Goldrein, offered places to his fellow councillors on the Merseyside economic development committee. But he was turned down. Incidentally, Neville Goldrein represents a ward in Sefton district.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is a Third Reading debate and he must relate all his remarks to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Wareing: May I remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that transitional councils are covered by the Bill. Sefton district will be asked to have indirectly elected councillors on the transitional council. I am pointing out that those who will be asked to represent Sefton are not interested in representation on the Merseyside county council, and I am offering proof of that.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) has returned to the Chamber. I agree with him that Merseyside county council has an excellent and honourable chief executive in Ray O'Brien. The hon. Gentleman has said that industry is opposed to the metropolitan counties, but I remind him that the Merseyside chamber of commerce and industry is not opposed to the Merseyside county council. The Merseyside chamber of commerce and industry is fully behind the retention of the county council and has often stated that view.
The Secretary of State cannot have listened to what the Merseyside churches have had to say. The Archbishop and the Bishop of Liverpool both abhor the Secretary of State's attempt to abolish county councils. Only a few days ago, the Merseyside churches ecumenical council held a vote. It was overwhelmingly in favour of the retention of the county council.
So which credible body on Merseyside is in favour of these draconian measures? [Interruption.] It cannot be the electors. If the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) wants to intervene, I shall allow him to do so, but

he has not yet made a speech, and he certainly is not here to defend the interests of people on Merseyside, even from a sedentary position.
The opinion poll carried out by the Liverpool polytechnic showed that 71 per cent. of people on Merseyside who were polled were in favour of retaining the county council. So it cannot be the electors who are in favour of the Government's draconian measures, because in the local elections this year the Conservative party lost in every district of Merseyside. In only one district—Wirral—did the Conservative party manage to maintain 50 per cent. of its candidates. Furthermore, it cannot have been electors at the general election last June, because the people of Merseyside elected Labour Members of Parliament by an overwhelming majority. There is not a single Conservative Member of Parliament representing Liverpool, Knowsley or St. Helens.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because, along with others, he has referred to opinion polls. Can he say whether that questionnaire sought to discover whether the constituent knew that there were two local authorities? Did the questionnaire ask whether the electors wanted to abolish one of them, or was it put as a carefully loaded question designed to produce the very answers that the hon. Gentleman has given us?

Mr. Wareing: Those involved were merely asked about their county councils. For example, the Government intend to abolish the Merseyside county council, and people were asked whether they agreed with that. They replied "No". Of course they were asked other questions, but that was the one relevant to this debate.
However, we have won the argument on the issue. That is demonstrated by the fact that the Government have kept very quiet until this Third Reading. Indeed, there are Conservative Members here who are either speaking or making interventions, but who until now have not contributed to the debates; I suspect that they have been dragged in for the purpose. We all know about planted questions.
I hope that the Secretary of State is a reasonable man. But I am afraid that he and the rest of the Government Front Bench are mere minions. Those who threaten democracy are devoid of principle, and put the holding of office above all else.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I begin by thanking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for spending so much time and energy in chairing us during the many hours that we have spent in debating the Committee stage and Third Reading of the Bill. Indeed, you look more sprightly than many of the rest of us do. I am sure that those Opposition Members who were present for much of the Committee stage of the Bill during the night will agree with that.
I feel that perhaps I am prying into private grief between the Labour party and the Liberal-SDP alliance, because much of our debate in the past 24 hours has been taken up with their battle. Only a very few Labour Members are now present, two of whom suggested during the debate that local government officials should indulge in what can only be described as anarchy by refusing to give information to the Government and borough councils. We have to thank Liberal and SDP Members for keeping us here for such a long time, even though the relevant amendments had been tabled by Labour Members. Nevertheless, it appears that Labour Members are now taking a great interest in the debate.
I was sorry to read in The Guardian yesterday—that newspaper is a trusted receptacle of news for the Labour party — that apparently Labour Members have been pressured by the leaders of South and West Yorkshire councils into taking more part in these debates.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had a wide debate, but the hon. Gentleman must come back to the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Tracey: I was going on to say that those Labour Members have now given us their views on the Bill, although I did not gain any benefit from what they said. The information has largely been loaded. Some of it has been material from unions, such as NALGO. I have received much the same sort of information from councils such as West Yorkshire and the Greater London council.
The Bill will lead us to the efficient and businesslike transfer of the powers of metropolitan councils to the borough councils in which the powers will eventually be vested. That is what ratepayers want, and what they will value greatly when they receive their rate demands after 1986, when the high-spending profligate metropolitan councils—

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tracey: The hon. Gentleman will wish to make his own speech, so I shall not delay the House by taking up his intervention.
The ratepayers will welcome lower rate bills when those profligate councils have been disbanded.
The Bill is about interim provisions leading to the abolition of metropolitan councils. We have heard much from Opposition Members about abolition. I assume that they have rehearsed their speeches for the autumn. I was sorry that even the chief spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), did so and repeated his attacks on the Liberal-SDP alliance. It is a pity that Opposition Members have had to pre-empt the abolition debate.
We have debated the important aspects of the interim provisions. We proceed along reasonable lines in administering local government. We take the lines accepted by the right hon. Member for Manchester,

Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) who, until a few months ago, was the chief Opposition spokesman on environment matters. Only a year ago, in a lecture subsequently published as a paper entitled "Labour and Local Democracy", he said that Parliament created local government, that Parliament could take away local government and any parts of it, and that there was no question about that.
In 1979, the leader of the majority party on the Greater London council, Mr. Ken Livingstone, said that he wished to see the abolition of the GLC, and that he wished that Lord Marshall and Sir Horace Cutler had also taken that line. He repeated even more recently, in 1982, during a lecture to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, that, in his opinion, the best place for local government was at borough level. We cannot beat that. This is the chap who, we are constantly being told, is the great defender of the metropolitan councils. But that is not so. He is source material for Conservative Members.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that Ken Livingstone, when talking as leader of the GLC about devolution to the boroughs, meant the devolution of all services to the boroughs? The Government propose not devolution to the boroughs, but the provision of a series of indirectly elected boards. That is not devolution to the boroughs.

Mr. Tracey: We know that the powers of local authorities in the London area are already 70 per cent. with the boroughs. Presumably Mr. Livingstone was talking of devolving a few more powers to the boroughs. Nevertheless, he may still have been left with some which, had he been momentarily sensible, he would also have put into specific hands—for example, the historic buildings and monuments division of the GLC, which, quite rightly, has been handed to the Historic Monuments Commission.
Today—the day on which we gave the Bill its Third Reading—is a landmark in the history of the abolition of the metropolitan councils. I believe that people will now begin to see the reality of what is happening and realise that the Government are proceeding along businesslike lines. As I said in Committee, we are now taking powers to get the essential facts and information from councils and giving powers to borough councils and, I hope, to the interim councils to challenge the budgets of the metropolitan councils as we move towards handover. That is most important. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that perhaps some of the powers need to be clarified even more than they are in the Bill.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my hon. Friend comment on the Second Reading of the London Government Bill in 1962? In that debate, Mr. Fred Willey, who, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, was the Labour Member for one of the Sunderland constituencies, said of the GLC:
The proposed new council has been described as a Frankenstein monster. This is not being too melodramatic. I warn the Government that if they create this body it will prove to be very rapacious. An inherent instability will be created within local government." — [Official Report, 11 December 1962; Vol. 669, c. 227.]

Mr. Tracey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of the attitude taken by the Labour party during the creation of the GLC. Indeed, I can add to what my hon. Friend said in quoting Mr. Fred Willey. I found it interesting, when reading the debates of that time, that


not only had Mr. Fred Willey, then a leading Labour Member, said that about the GLC, but so had Mr. George Brown and Mr. Michael Stewart, both now in another place. More especially, I noted, so had Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who, of course, was a veritable mentor—

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman's speech in order? He seems to be straying an awful long way from the provisions of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill into pure political propaganda, some of it inaccurate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. So-called political propaganda is not unknown in the Chamber.

Mr. Tracey: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I have been mixing too closely with certain hon. Members who indulge in blatant propaganda when speaking in the Chamber. I hope that I am not catching their ways.
I end with a hope. When Third Reading is concluded, I hope that much of the scaremongering will cease. It has been very costly scaremongering. Certainly we know that £3 million has been spent directly on public relations by the GLC, and no doubt many millions of pounds have been spent by the metropolitan councils. I trust that this costly scaremongering, with its tales about old people, parents, various organisations and so on, will stop, and that we shall take a turn for the better.
In conclusion, when I look at some of the propaganda that has emerged, especially in the Greater London area—massive hoardings and pieces in the papers about the wonders of the GLC — I wonder whether there is perhaps a slight motive in the mind of the leader of the GLC in believing that it will help his own political position in the country. I was somewhat surprised to receive a publicity leaflet the other day about a book that has been written about him entitled "Citizen Ken". No doubt it will become a new little Red Book in the Labour party. One passage of the leaflet said:
May 8—The Queen, Prince Philip, Ken Livingstone and his mother, Ethel, open the Thames Barrier.
I was most pleased to have been present to see the Thames barrier opened. That project was certainly started by the Government and managed by the GLC. In due course it will be managed by the Thames water authority after abolition of the GLC. But I was interested to see whether Her Majesty the Queen actually opened it. Certainly Prince Philip was present at her side. I was pleased to see that Mrs. Ethel Livingstone, who looks an absolutely charming person, was also present. But there is no way that Mr. Ken Livingstone or Mrs. Ethel Livingstone opened the Thames barrier. When I hear this sort of publicity for the man across the river, I wonder where he is going next. I think that I know—I think that he will be in the House in the place of someone who is here now.

9 pm

Mr. Roland Boyes: I want only five minutes, because I wish to allow some of my hon. Friends to speak.
I should just like to say why we are here. We know that there is a political alliance between two parties here, but today we have seen the grand alliance of three political parties to prevent a debate on the fate of 1,800 British Leyland workers. That shows the sort of people who are members of those parties.
The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) mentioned that certain senior local government officers had advocated anarchy. As a former assistant director of social services, and therefore a senior officer, I can tell him that a ruling in the courts determined that information obtained by an officer of a council — whether confidential or not—was the property of the local authority, not of the individual. Therefore, without the express permission of his authority, the officer could not give information to any other individual or body. That is clearly laid down.
There is no moral, political or intellectual justification for the changes proposed by the Government. I should like to refer to two aspects, although I could cover many others. The first is the lack of precedent. The Government's decision to abolish elections to local government before they have decided what to do about local government is outrageous, as they are aware. I should like to quote from the ministerial group on the abolition of the GLC and metropolitan county councils, MISC 95. Clearly it understood this when it considered the two options—deferral or suppression of the elections. It states:
(i) Deferral. It would be in accordance with precedents of past reorganisations to defer the elections for a year".
It also said that some members of the group argued that there were constitutional: and political objections to substitution. However, despite that, the Government decided to go for substitution and to defer the elections before abolition.
I should like to quote The Times editorial of 13 April 1984, which would have made a basis for a wonderful examination question for university students:
Mr. Jenkin and Mr. Waldegrave replied that there was no precedent for their proposal because there was no precedent for the situation their proposal was tailored to fit".
If that is not a convoluted argument, I do not know what is.
The Government's argument is that the metropolitan councils—I live in the Tyne and Wear metropolitan council — are placing unfair financial burdens on constituents. Surely the most effective and democratic way of reprimanding councillors is to hold an election and to allow the people who put them in positions of trust to remove them. I think that the Government knew that the councillors on the Tyne and Wear metropolitan council were doing such a good job that they dared not take that risk. They knew that the people whom the councillors represent would have put them back again with an even bigger majority.
I can lean on two pieces of evidence. The first is the general election of 1983, in which 11 Labour and two Conservative Members of Parliament were returned to the House. There was none from any other political party. Despite all the exaggerations about the behaviour of the councils, the people whom I represent again voted overwhelmingly for Labour. If the Government are really concerned about ratepayers' rights, it is a massive contradiction not to let the ratepayers of the Tyne and Wear county council area decide for themselves whether the council is wasting their money.
My second piece of evidence is a booklet by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), a treatise about supposed waste of money, called "Politics on the Rates". Even that Conservative hon. Member said about the Tyne and Wear county council:


Only a payment of £250 to the campaign against the appointment of additional district auditors could be described as in any way remotely political.
Are elections in the Tyne and Wear area to be abolished because the council gave £250 out of about £2 million to a campaign that could be described as "remotely political"? To attack democracy takes us down a dangerous road. I greatly regret that the Government are taking us down that road.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members are anxious to take part in the debate. I should like to fit them all in before the wind-up speeches begin. If hon. Members would speak briefly, it would be immensely helpful.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I shall indeed be brief, Mr. Speaker. I strongly support many of the arguments against the Bill that have been advanced by the Opposition, and should like to refer to one or two in putting our opposition to the Bill on the record.
However, I must first refer to the remarkable contribution by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) from the Labour Front Bench at the beginning of the debate. It was remarkable, first, because as soon as he had made it the hon. Gentleman left the House and has not listened to any other speeches in the debate. He did not attend many of the debates in Committee during the night, either. It is a gross discourtesy for a Front Bench spokesman to do that.
To make matters worse, the hon. Member also made a despicable and dishonest misrepresentation of the policies of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties which, if he has read the documents from which he quoted, he must know is inaccurate. At the election and in publications at other times, the alliance proposed that regional authorities should replace the second tier of local government. That policy is widely known and recognised inside and outside the House.
The hon. Member for Copeland also made an intemperate personal attack on me. That was unworthy of him. I have a high regard for his ability, and it was uncharacteristic of him to launch into a personal attack. Unlike him, I am not prepared to put party before conscience and the commitments that I have made to my constituents. I am not prepared to tolerate friends and colleagues being thrown out of public office by party cabals. I am not prepared to accept policies with which I do not agree being thrust down my throat by party conference or committee. I am not prepared to do about-turns because a party committee or cabal requires me to do so. The hon. Member for Copeland is prepared to do so, but it does not help the debate for him to make intemperate personal attacks.
We have had a remarkable debate during the past 24 hours and more. The Bill's proceedings have taken up a substantial number of hours, and we have had a full debate as a result of our efforts to ensure that all the clauses were debated, not half of them, that all the amendments were considered, not half of them, and that we had double the time that we would have had if the agreement between the two Front Benches to closure the debate last night had come into operation. As a result of our party's actions, the House has had a full opportunity for debate.
The opposition to the Bill is not just rhetoric, and Conservative Members and the Secretary of State are wide of the mark if they think it is. They need only look at their own Benches. Senior members of their party do not oppose the Government unless a fundamental issue is at stake, and that issue has been put forward by both Conservative and Opposition Members.
In our view, the Bill is unnecessary, because the Government should have extended the life of the existing elected authorities. That would have been the best way to proceed, before abolishing the authorities. The Bill is objectionable in principle, because it alters the control of the area on the basis of an administrative change, instead of on the basis of the ballot box.
The Bill should be opposed because we have no estimates of the costs that the new administration will involve. The record of the Secretary of State and his colleagues in reorganising the Health Service, with the tremendous waste and cost that that involved, encourages us to place little faith in their ability to carry out changes.
Finally, the Bill is an attack on democracy. It has been motivated by party political advantage. It is a tinkering with the constitution for party ends, which is a dangerous course to pursue. We shall therefore oppose the Bill.

Mr. Reg Freeson: This Bill, like much else that is associated with this subject, and the conduct of our debates at the hands of the Government are unworthy of the Secretary of State, for whom, generally speaking, I have considerable regard and respect.
The Bill can be described only as political opportunism. It is before us for one reason only — that the Government do not like the the political complexion of the elected members who now run the metropolitan counties and the GLC. That is not a sound reason in priniple, nor is it a good intellectual process in working out good local government policy. It is intellectually and morally untenable. I regret to say that, but I put it on record, because that is what it is.
I want to say a word about the background to the Bill. There is no doubt in my mind, or in the minds of most people both in the House and outside, that there is considerable scope for improving local government—in particular, in cities with major urban problems of regeneration. There is scope for improving the internal organisation of local government, to get away from much of the departmentalism. There is a good deal of scope for reforming the structure of committees as well as of departments. There is much scope for reforming the system of local government finance and for further devolution within the elective local government system at district and borough level as well as across the country as a whole. Those are my views, and they are widely held both inside and outside local government.
The White Paper, "Streamlining the Cities", which was the background to the Bill and the measure to be introduced in the autumn, did not consider any of these issues. Despite the pretence, very little political debate, either by or in support of the Government, referred to these issues. Even the issue of devolution, of transferring powers to the districts, was not tackled by the White Paper or by the Bill. Nor will it be tackled by the forthcoming legislation.
A close examination of the proposals, for which this Bill is the paving legislation, makes it clear that only about


10 per cent. of the powers and responsibilities of the GLC and the metropolitan authorities will be transferred to the district authorities within those areas. The bulk of those powers and responsibilities will be transferred to Government-sponsored quango boards, not to the local district authorities as was suggested in the main theme of the Government's advocacy for this measure.
One central issue in the Bill is the transference of responsibility for running the country and GLC authorities to appointed boards during the transitional period. That is an issue of principle as well as of practicality. They go together. There is an important question of principle, and it is not outweighed by any arguments about practicality. Earlier, the Minister and his hon. Friends said that practicalities outweighed the issue of principle. However, they rarely defined those practical issues. The practical problems, which will arise by the creation of these appointed boards or agencies to run the authorities, have been discussed. Practical problems are likely. The path will not be smooth.
I was leader of my local council when the London Government Act 1963 was introduced. I was also a member of the newly elected authority which took over from the boroughs. In my case, Willesden and Wembley was replaced by the Brent authority. The transfer was undertaken by elected members. The new authority worked with us to transfer the functions.
I have read or listened to all the speeches made by the Secretary of State, and indeed many others, on the issue; but nowhere has there been any real argument against the extension of existing elected authorities.

Mr. Richard Holt: rose—

Mr. Freeson: There is too little time to give way. I shall sit down in a moment.
No arguments have withstood that simple proposition. It is a precedent. It has been done before. It could have been done this time, but the Government have not done it, for one reason—political opportunism. It is nothing to do with all the arguments and speeches that we have heard about devolution. That is a disgrace to politics and to this House, and it will bring local government into disrepute. However strong their views, the Government should have more respect for their responsibilities in local government than they have shown in the Bill.

Mr. Tom Cox: I could make many comments. But hon. Members with a background of local government, regardless of which side they sit on, will know that the Bill is riddled with erosions of democracy. We have had no response from the Minister or his junior Ministers to the many important questions that have been asked. The Under-Secretary waffled on about costs earlier today, and we know that officers will be under an enormous threat in trying to continue to give adequate information when services are being run down. It is a sad day for the future of local government, not only the authorities that we are discussing in the Bill, but throughout the country.
As a Member for an inner London constituency, I should like to touch on a specific point. In recent years, thanks to the efforts of the Greater London council, considerable financial help and back-up services have been forthcoming to the ethnic communities in inner

London. I speak specifically of black and Asian communities. We know of the enormous hardships that such people and their families have had to face, and it is only as a result of the back-up of the GLC in areas such as mine that money has been advanced so that community centres can be built, community helpers can start to work with community groups and training facilities can be developed for the young unemployed. It is thanks to the GLC that we have been able to build up the confidence of the ethnic communities in the areas that we represent.
I remind the House that in the past we have had to spend a considerable amount of time discussing the sad effects of our neglect of inner city areas. Let me strengthen my points with a brief reference to comments made by Lord Scarman when he headed the inquiry following problems in those areas. He said that
there is a need for a more co-ordinated and directed programme for combating the problems of racial discrimination".
Devolving responsibility for such matters to the boroughs would be unlikely to meet that need. That is why we are so opposed to the break-up of the GLC, and of the services and responsibilities that the Bill will threaten.
We know from experience—we have discussed this in relation to many other aspects of the Bill—that such matters should not be left to the boroughs. In London we have 32 boroughs of different political persuasions, with different outlooks on the issues that come before them. But this is an issue of crucial importance not only to London but to many other city areas. The kind of help, confidence and support that we build up for the ethnic groups in our communities should be of paramount importance. But. far from helping to build up those services, the Bill will erode them. When we are told, as we were earlier today, that there will be substantial savings but are not told what those savings will be, as an inner London Member I shudder to think what will happen if those savings are imposed on the services needed in areas like mine.
As my hon. Friends have said, I hope that we continue to oppose the Bill inside and outside the House, in response to the views that we know are held by the people of London, because the Bill goes against all the democratic rights and beliefs which have been fought for and built up in this country over many years. It must be opposed on those grounds alone.

Mr. Bill Michie: I rise again because of my great concern and not, as I think the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said, because of pressure from the county council. As a county councillor, and a district councillor until May, no one puts me under pressure, and there is no need to do so, because we believe in the county council and fought an honest and straight battle on it. Those lies will be put straight in Sheffield tomorrow, as the Liberals apparently reported in Sheffield that no Labour Member was in the Chamber from 1 o'clock onwards last night. That is the sort of lie we often hear from Liberals, and that is why they get no seats in south Yorkshire.
I want to make some very quick points, mainly because other hon. Members want to speak. I believe that the county council was a bit of a dog's dinner when it 'was created and yet the county councillors and officers have made such a good job of it that most people are satisfied with it.
We should look at what the South Yorkshire county council has done and remember the dereliction that it has cleared away, the slag heaps that have disappeared, the country parks and lakelands which are now there and the culture that has come in where there was none before. That is what the counties and south Yorkshire have done, and that is why many people are saying "That's OK by me."
One problem that has never been admitted by the Government, and perhaps never will be, was hinted at by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir J. Osborn). Business men in our chamber of commerce have said that they should have an extra vote over mere ratepayers in the electorate because they pay higher rates. Obviously the Government will not get it that way, so they can do it only by taking away the electorate's vote with one hand and giving it to business men with the other. That is one way of cheating the electorate out of its democratic vote.
All the county council committees that I have worked on have functioned well and I congratulate them. Whatever people think about county councils, I believe that the Tory Government have messed it up once. I ask them, for God's sake, to leave it alone and not to mess it up again.

Mr. Harry Cohen: At about 2 o'clock this morning we had a short debate about an appropriate title for the. Bill. The best one was the "Local Government (Attack on Democracy) Bill". That is what it should be called.
Local democracy is important, not just because it is a check upon centralised power, which we need these days, but because it is about the right to vote. That vote has been hard fought for in the past and it should not be taken away at the whim of the governing party. But it is not an abstract thing, a vote about nothing. It is also a vote about services, jobs and rate levels. That is the context in which we must view the Bill, because it is a joint attack on the vote and on services. We have had the rate support grant cuts, the penalties and the rate capping — and now there is abolition.
The Bill, which replaces directly elected regional authorities, with unaccountable, unelected, quangos, is worse than it seems. It is an anti-democratic cheat's charter. It abolishes the 1985 elections and it introduces gerrymandering. In the GLC the Tories will take control without an election. The best option is that the present Labour majority of seven will become a Tory majority of 14, and the result could be much worse.
The two aspects, abolishing elections and gerrymandering, create very dangerous precedents for future Governments. The Government have no mandate for such a policy. They did not say at the general election that people would lose the right to vote for their own regional government. The Government's unpopularity over this issue is reflected in the polls — seven out of 10 Londoners are opposed to the Bill. In the local elections the Government received black eyes, particularly over the costs involved in the Bill.

Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that in less than an hour this will have become the longest continuous sitting since the war on any one Bill? That is symbolic of the resistance that the Labour movement is mounting to this vicious legislation.

Mr. Cohen: The Government have gone ahead with this undemocratic measure without any public inquiry or proper analysis. They have been talking of savings of £120 million, but their estimates have been wholly unsubstantiated. All the costs, disruption, service cuts, job losses and loss of democracy are the result.
No wonder that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) said that the more the case is advanced, the less good it seems. That is a massive understatement. The only excuse for the Bill is political malice, because the GLC and the metropolitan councils are going the opposite way to the Prime Minister. They are much more popular, and much more successful. The Prime Minister cannot brook opposition of that sort. The Bill is a bad Bill, and the public pressures against it will continue. The Tories will not be allowed to disfranchise 13 million people. It is deeply offensive to those people that they will not be able to vote for their public services. The Tories will reap the harvest of public disgust over the Bill. Trade unionists will not see their jobs go without a struggle.
The Bill is about gerrymandering, and abolishing an election. Let the people decide, and stop the rigging.

Mr. Dave Nellist: We are at the end of the longest debate that has taken place on a single Bill in the past seven years in this Chamber. As the last sitting county councillor who is also a Member of Parliament present in the Chamber, and probably the only speaker in the past few hours from the west midlands area, it is difficult to sum up, in the couple of minutes left to me, the obnoxious nature of the legislation that the Government are putting through Parliament.
I put on one side the fact that the Secretary of State has not proved a single one of the facts and figures with which he set out six months ago to claim the savings that abolition would provide. I also put on one side the fact that the extra costs of abolition will be tremendous. Services like fire brigades, highways, transport and police cannot be split between six or seven district councils, and give the same standard of service as was supplied regionally.
I put those arguments aside because of shortage of time, and deal with only one remark made a couple hours ago by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir J. Osborn). He told hon. Members then present in the Chamber that too many people are living in subsidised housing, and travelling on subsidised transport. I am often accused of bringing class issues into debate. But that statement epitomises the class nature of the anti-democratic measures being taken in the Chamber tonight.
There is a reason for the measure. The Government, facing a crisis, trying to line the wallets of those who paid to get them elected, have decided in recent Budgets to save their big companies £3,000 million by abolishing the national insurance surcharge. That money must be found but from where? It might mean 30 fewer hospitals or 50 fewer community centres or community health centres; perhaps there will be 50,000 fewer council houses or even 100,000 fewer jobs. That could mean £3,000 million being wiped out of the public expenditure budgets because the national insurance surcharge is lifted. To do that, the Government must control the end product; they will control councils by limiting their expenditure and will wipe out the metropolitan councils.
Those are the reasons behind the legislation. Labour-controlled authorities are trying to reduce bus fares and provide better roads and consumer services. Yet this class-ridden Government—as the speech by the hon. Member for Hallam clearly demonstrated—have taken the logic of their own position: if they cannot win at the ballot box and transform a Labour-controlled GLC into a Tory-controlled GLC, they will do so through bureaucratic diktat. If the Government cannot change the opinions of workers in the west midlands, Tyne and Wear, Manchester, Merseyside and areas in Yorkshire affected by the legislation, they will abolish those people's representatives. That is what it comes down to. If the Government cannot convince people, they will wipe out their institutions. At least our 20-plus hours of debate today, and the speeches of Opposition Members, have warned those outside of this Government's true nature.
Whether or not the Bill is accepted. I make a prediction. First, the Government will not be in office in three years' time to witness its final implementation; secondly, in the next three years, a few tens of thousands of workers in the county councils will ensure that the Government do not have the easy path which they believe lies ahead.

Mr. Jack Straw: During our many hours of debate on the closing stages of the Committee proceedings and on Third Reading today there was much discussion about the different parties' attitudes to local government and local government reorganisation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State —the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave)—tried to dredge up the ancient and slightly distorted history of the Conservative party to suggest that there is a continuum in the Government's present proposal. We know that the Marquess of Salisbury—a Conservative if ever there was one — brought forward the original London county council legislation in 1888; a Conservative Government, under the then right hon. Harold Macmillan, introduced the London Government Act 1963 which created the GLC; and a Conservative Government in 1972, under the premiership of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—under whom both the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State loyally served—reorganised local government. In other words, the fact that Conservative Governments created the LCC, the GLC and the metropolitan councils was dismissed entirely by Conservative Members. All that is prayed in aid are the recommendations—rejected by a Conservative Government—of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
We also heard about the alliance's proposals for local government reform. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House should read the alliance's election manifesto. They should remember that such is the opportunism of alliance Members that the tune that they played today is totally different from the one that they played at the general election when their manifesto stated that the alliance proposed to abolish
one of the existing tiers of local government. This will be done by stages against the background of our proposals for the development of regional government. It would inevitably involve the eventual abolition of the Metropolitan Counties, and the GLC … and would also allow for the restoration of powers to some of the former County boroughs".

The words are there to be seen. I read them all. In its manifesto, the alliance was committed to the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. People will judge politicians, not least by their consistency.
It is a fact that neither the MCCs nor the GLC have received unanimous support from the House. Indeed, I hear that that the Secretary of State is about to let us into a closely guarded secret.

Mr. Tony Banks: He is going to resign, is he?

Mr. Straw: That will be no secret by the time the Conservative party has finished with him and he has pushed through this legislation and the Government have picked up the bill for the Rates Bill which, according to the Financial Times, will cost £500 million, if not £1,000 million.
I understand that the Secretary of State has in his hands a secret Labour document which will embarrass Opposition Members. No doubt some reservations about the GLC or the MCCs are expressed in it, and we shall listen to him with bated breath. However, if he spends his time dredging through our ancient history, he will be missing the point of the debate.
The Bill is not about the reform of local government. No Government have ever done what this Government are doing. Whenever there have been proposals for changes in local government in the past, the Government of the day have gone through a proper consultation process. They have established a royal commission or an advisory committee and have developed a consensus. However much a Government dislike or disclaim consensus, they must gain consent from all the voters for measures governing the development of democratic institutions. Otherwise, the institutions that are created will not last long, as the Secretary of State will discover if he pushes the changes through.
There have been no consultations on the Bill and there are no proposals for reform or change before the House. We have no idea—nor has the Secretary of State—about the detail of the proposals, which took up three lines in the Conservative party manifesto. The Bill is about abolishing elections and withdrawing people's democratic rights, and that is being done before any reforms have been put be fore the House. That is an unprecedented and anti-democratic action — unfortunately, wholly consistent with this Government's authoritarian tendencies, which we see exercised all too often in many Departments these days.
We object to the Bill because it is a constitutional affront. It is an example of elective dictatorship and the abuse of power by an elected Government. Furthermore, it is not justified on the basis of the Government's own arguments. There is no need for an interim provisions Bill to abolish elections before reforms are brought before the House, and nothing of the kind has happened before.
The Secretary of State is forcing the Bill through the House—with the support of Conservative Members—not because it is a necessary part of a serious reform of local government, but because the Government are scared that they have suffered a dramatic loss of support in the cities and great towns of this country. They know that if there were elections in 1985 in the GLC and MCC areas the people would pass a devastating judgment on the first few years of Thatcherism, and that is a conclusion that they cannot face.
If the GLC and the MCCs and our colleagues, Mr. Kenneth Livingstone in London and Mr. Roy Thwaites in


South Yorkshire, are as unpopular as the Government would have us believe, and if the people of Sheffield and South Yorkshire dislike having to pay slightly higher rates—although much lower bus fares—let us put the facts to them. Let us put to them the argument of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir J. Osborn) that, as a result of the higher rates in Sheffield, unemployment has risen higher than elsewhere. Let the people judge the facts. The reality is that, despite the Government's devastation of the steel industry, and despite the higher rates, unemployment in South Yorkshire has risen far more slowly than in the jewel in the crown of the new Tory establishment—Birmingham. Birmingham has had rate cuts, but unemployment has risen faster there than in South Yorkshire. We all know that local government spending has been protecting jobs and services and that jobs have been lost as a direct result of the Government's economic policies.
The proposal is not justified by the Government's detailed arguments about cost savings and efficiency. The Government went to the country to obtain the fraudulent mandate, which they claim to have on this issue, on the basis that at least £120 million would be saved. Time and again we have challenged the Government to produce costings to justify that claim. The Conservative party is supposed to be the party of business men and accountants, but the Government have plucked that figure out of the air without any justification. No wonder the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said earlier that there is no point in putting forward detailed figures. The Government do not have any figures.
The change which this so-called paving Bill pre-empts will not lead to savings. It will lead not to an abolition of functions, but to a more complex arrangement for the administration of those functions. This is an antidemocratic measure. The Government know that they have lost the argument and support, but, instead of being willing to put their case before the people of London and the great cities of this country, they seek to jackboot the changes through the House in a classic example of dictatorship.
The people of our great cities showed in the elections on 3 May that they wholly reject the measure and all that it stands for. I warrant that, as the Government sow elective the wind, they will reap a whirlwind. The Secretary of State and the Conservative party will rue the day that they sought to abolish elections and to destroy democracy in the hearts of our great cities and towns.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) started his speech this afternoon with what I can only describe as a savage attack on the alliance parties and on the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who has paid us two brief visits during this long sitting. I have always regarded the hon. Member for Copeland as a kindly man, but he displayed a talent for invective and passion of which I did not suspect him. He has been critical of the Bill, but his strictures on the Bill were but as tender love pats compared with the ferocity of his attack on the alliance parties. Of course the alliance parties argued back, with egg all over their faces. Those of my hon. Friends who were present know that we

were treated to a remarkable spectacle of the two main Opposition parties tearing each other to pieces. It was a sight to warm the cockles of a simple Tory heart like mine.
I should like to begin in a different vein and to express my very warm appreciation of the sterling work of my two hon. Friends, the Under-Secretaries of State, the Members for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) and for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). They handled most of the Committee stage, with skill and stamina. The hon. Member for Copeland was a little unfair. The debates were answered and they were answered with courtesy. Argument was met with argument. My hon. Friends have done the Government proud in the debates on this Bill.
We have heard a lot about the pressures on Yorkshire Members of Parliament to take part in the debates and we have seen the results in some of their speeches. However, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the pressure on Greater Manchester Members, which seems to have been handled, if I may put it this way, with even greater finesse. I have a document here from the Greater Manchester council. It is a memo to all staff from a Mr. R. G. Kilner who, I am told, is a senior man—an assistant county engineer. I shall not read the whole memo but just a couple of passages. It states:
It is understood that the Labour opposition to the Bill was less enthusiastic than expected. I shall be pleased therefore, if as a matter of urgency, any member of staff who lives in a Labour constituency would write to his MP at the House of Commons telling him that he is expected to take an active interest".
This is perhaps a little more serious:
If anybody is not yet exhausted from their epistolory efforts"—
spelled wrongly—
a letter to Patrick Jenkin might also be useful".
It then suggests the line to be taken:
You might add that when you voted Conservative — it does not matter whether you did or not—you were not aware that you were voting for the cancellation of elections.
It finishes:
In any of the letters do not describe yourself as an employee of the GMC".
The document shows that the public are being invited to support the campaign through a pattern of deception and lies. This ill-starred circular discredits every single letter that has been written to Members of Parliament in this campaign.

Mr. Boyes: Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy Speaker have quite correctly throughout the evening asked hon. Members, straying slightly, to return to discussing the Bill. When will the Secretary of State start talking about the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the Secretary of State was here when I said that.

Mr. Peter Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State, when replying to the debate, referred to Greater Manchester Members of Parliament—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a point of argument and not a point of order.

Mr. Jenkin: We have been attacked throughout these debates for depriving, as it is said, 18 million people of the right to vote. The case for unitary metropolitan authorities means that the local electorate will have only one layer of local government to pay for. Therefore, they will have only one layer of local government to vote for.
What on earth is undemocratic about that? As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) said, these same 18 million people will retain, without question, their right to vote in borough and district elections.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: Is it seriously argued that democracy requires two layers of government if only one is needed? Why stop there? Why not go on and have three layers of government and three lots of votes, or four layers of government and four lots of votes? The argument is ludicrous. Local government in the metropolitan areas is best served by the boroughs and the districts. They are smaller, closer to the people and run from the local town hall.
My hon. Friends the Members for Dewsbury (Mr. Whitfield), for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn), for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) spelt out the arguments with great force. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir J. Osborn) assured the House that his constituents were in strong support of the Bill. To those who have been stampeded into protesting because they believe that they are losing their vote I say this: elections to the boroughs and districts will continue on exactly the same basis as before. The local electorate will be able to vote for one all-purpose metropolitan authority— their local council. There is nothing undemocratic about that.
Although my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) accepted that it was right to cancel the 1985 met county and GLC elections, he argued the case for the existing council to run on for an extra year. He rightly said that that was the one really serious argument against the Bill. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) made the same point on Second Reading. At column 469 of the Official Report he said:
I can sympathise with the Secretary of State's claim that it would have been wasteful to hold elections. I fully realise that, but the natural thing to do in those circumstances is to let local authorities continue in existence for another year."—[Official Report, 11 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 469.]
It is clear that the real issue is not the suspension of elections but the choice between whether the existing councils should run for an extra year or whether they should be run by the borough and district councils.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival), speaking with all the authority of a former Law Officer, said that there was no question of principle here to outweigh the practical considerations. He is right. The GLC and met county councils were elected in 1981 for four years. It is a perfectly sound argument to say that they should not have their term of office extended by an extra year for which they were not elected and for which they would have no mandate.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that many would not serve. In previous reorganisations there was no choice. The term of the existing councillors had to be extended, but in this reorganisation successor councils are already there. That is what makes the difference. The boroughs and districts are powerful, democratically elected bodies in their own right and they will succeed to the powers and functions.
So the democratic arguments are finely balanced. What makes the difference is that the lower tier — the boroughs and districts—have every incentive to make

reorganisation succeed. That is why the Government came down in the end in favour of the boroughs and districts nominating elected councillors from within their own ranks to run the GLC and the met county councils in the final 11 months.

Mr. Wareing: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: Then it is said, "That means a change of control." So be it. Is it really suggested that to retain Labour control in London we should legislate for a minority of Labour boroughs to nominate the majority of GLC councillors? That would be a ludicrous solution.
We have had long debates on the Bill and it is time to draw them to a close. The Government gave a very firm pledge to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. We shall fulfil that pledge. It is an aim that, over the years, has had much support from all parties. The l3i11 is the first essential legislative step along that road. Not all the expensive advertising, nor all the pressure of petitioners on pensioners, mortgagors and suppliers can disguise the fact that the campaign against the Bill is little more than a series of expensive, political stunts.
Some people have said that the GLC's campaign is convincing them that that body has no role. The GLC has become little more than a hollow shell with no real function, except to campaign expensively for its own purposeless survival. I ask the House to support the Third Reading of the Bill in the Lobby tonight.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 176.

Division No. 335]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bulmer, Esmond


Aitken, Jonathan
Butcher, John


Alexander, Richard
Butler, Hon Adam


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ancram, Michael
Cash, William


Arnold, Tom
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Chope, Christopher


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Churchill, W. S.


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Batiste, Spencer
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Beggs, Roy
Cockeram, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Colvin, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Simon


Berry, Sir Anthony
Cope, John


Best, Keith
Corrie, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Couchman, James


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Cranborne, Viscount


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Crouch, David


Body, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dicks, Terry


Bottomley, Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Dover, Den


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dunn, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bright, Graham
Eggar, Tim


Brinton, Tim
Emery, Sir Peter


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fallon, Michael


Browne, John
Farr, John


Bruinvels, Peter
Favell, Anthony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Buck, Sir Antony
Fookes, Miss Janet






Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Franks, Cecil
Lord, Michael


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Luce, Richard


Freeman, Roger
Lyell, Nicholas


Gale, Roger
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Galley, Roy
MacGregor, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maclean, David John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Madel, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Maginnis, Ken


Gow, Ian
Major, John


Greenway, Harry
Malins, Humfrey


Gregory, Conal
Malone, Gerald


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Maples, John


Grist, Ian
Marland, Paul


Grylls, Michael
Marlow, Antony


Gummer, John Selwyn
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mates, Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Maude, Hon Francis


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hanley, Jeremy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hannam, John
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mellor, David


Harvey, Robert
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Moate, Roger


Hawksley, Warren
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hayes, J.
Monro, Sir Hector


Hayhoe, Barney
Moore, John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Heddle, John
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Henderson, Barry
Moynihan, Hon C.


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Murphy, Christopher


Hickmet, Richard
Neale, Gerrard


Hill, James
Needham, Richard


Hind, Kenneth
Nelson, Anthony


Hirst, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Newton, Tony


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Nicholls, Patrick


Holt, Richard
Nicholson, J.


Hooson, Tom
Normanton, Tom


Hordern, Peter
Norris, Steven


Howard, Michael
Oppenheim, Philip


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Osborn, Sir John


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ottaway, Richard


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Page, John (Harrow W)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Parris, Matthew


Hunter, Andrew
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pawsey, James


Irving, Charles
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Jessel, Toby
Pollock, Alexander


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Porter, Barry


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Powley, John


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Price, Sir David


Key, Robert
Prior, Rt Hon James


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Proctor, K. Harvey


King, Rt Hon Tom
Raffan, Keith


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Knowles, Michael
Renton, Tim


Lamont, Norman
Rhodes James, Robert


Lang, Ian
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Latham, Michael
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rowe, Andrew


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ryder, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sackville, Hon Thomas





Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Thornton, Malcolm


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Thurnham, Peter


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Tracey, Richard


Shersby, Michael
Trippier, David


Sims, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Skeet, T. H. H.
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Viggers, Peter


Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Waldegrave, Hon William


Speller, Tony
Walden, George


Spencer, Derek
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Squire, Robin
Waller, Gary


Stanbrook, Ivor
Ward, John


Stanley, John
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stern, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Watson, John


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Watts, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wheeler, John


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Whitfield, John


Stokes, John
Whitney, Raymond


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wiggin, Jerry


Sumberg, David
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Woodcock, Michael


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Yeo, Tim


Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Terlezki, Stefan



Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Carol Mather and


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Mr. Robert Boscawen.




NOES


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Ashdown, Paddy
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Deakins, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Dewar, Donald


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dobson, Frank


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dormand, Jack


Barnett, Guy
Douglas, Dick


Barron, Kevin
Dubs, Alfred


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Duffy, A. E. P.


Beith, A. J.
Eadie, Alex


Benn, Tony
Eastham, Ken


Bermingham, Gerald
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Blair, Anthony
Ewing, Harry


Boyes, Roland
Fatchett, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Flannery, Martin


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Derek


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ian
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Canavan, Dennis
George, Bruce


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Godman, Dr Norman


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Golding, John


Clarke, Thomas
Ground, Patrick


Clay, Robert
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Cohen, Harry
Harman, Ms Harriet


Conlan, Bernard
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Corbett, Robin
Haynes, Frank


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.


Cormack, Patrick
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Craigen, J. M.
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howells, Geraint


Cunningham, Dr John
Hoyle, Douglas


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)






Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pavitt, Laurie


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Penhaligon, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pike, Peter


John, Brynmor
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Radice, Giles


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Randall, Stuart


Kennedy, Charles
Redmond, M.


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Kirkwood, Archibald
Richardson, Ms Jo


Knox, David
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Lambie, David
Robertson, George


Lamond, James
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Leighton, Ronald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Rowlands, Ted


Litherland, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Loyden, Edward
Skinner, Dennis


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


McGuire, Michael
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


McKelvey, William
Soley, Clive


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Steel, Rt Hon David


Maclennan, Robert
Stott, Roger


McNamara, Kevin
Strang, Gavin


McTaggart, Robert
Straw, Jack


McWilliam, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Madden, Max
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Marek, Dr John
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Martin, Michael
Tinn, James


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Torney, Tom


Maxton, John
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wallace, James


Michie, William
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mikardo, Ian
Wareing, Robert


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Weetch, Ken


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
White, James


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Nellist, David
Winnick, David


O'Brien, William
Woodall, Alec


O'Neill, Martin
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David



Park, George
Tellers for the Noes:


Parry, Robert
Mr. Allen McKay and


Patchett, Terry
Mr. Don Dixon.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Educational Centres Association

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

Mr. Robin Squire: It is difficult to describe my feelings, having waited — with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State — for this magic moment, and heard en passant that apart from a sitting in 1936 this is the longest sitting that the House of Commons has had since 1881.
I welcome the presence of my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). They represent areas with outstanding examples of adult education centres — indeed those places are a byword for that. I welcome too, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), whose work in adult education, as the chairman of the all-party committee, is well known.
As one or two hon. Members know, my wife is, as they say, active in this sphere, and a voluntary member elected to the national body of the Educational Centres Association. That is not a declaration of a financial interest but of a financial cost. However, that has allowed me to attend half a dozen conferences of the ECA, as I shall henceforth refer to it. It has given me not merely a theoretical knowledge of its activities but a practical grounding in them.
The ECA was formed in 1921 to promote adult education through participation. It is unique in offering a forum for all engaged in adult education, especially in the local education authority sector, to engage in a partnership promoting learning opportunities for adults through a participatory structure involving administrators, teachers, both full and part-time, and, above all, the students. A network of communicating centres, sharing their experiences, provides a training ground both for professional staff and student members of the centres to work closely within and for their local communities. This training comes through the conferences and seminars organised by the association where knowledgeable and experienced people share their skills and initiatives with others on a wide variety of topics. I cannot list them all, but they include adult basic education, adult unemployment, education for the handicapped, pre-retirement education, technological innovation, new initiatives in language teaching and many, many more. Over 400,000 such students within 150 centres have a voice in national affairs through their membership of the ECA.
On 6 March my hon. Friend answered a question of mine and it revealed that the grant to the ECA was scheduled to be reduced and, indeed, eliminated. That was confirmed in a letter dated 14 March to the ECA from the Department of Education and Science. It is a long letter and I do not propose to detain the House by reading it at length. In essence, it confirmed that the existing grant of £18,000 would be phased out from 1985–86 until it stopped completely in March 1988. Six criteria were advanced in the letter for accepting an association as eligible for grant aid.
I make it clear that not only does the ECA accept in full the validity of those six criteria but submits, humbly or otherwise, that it complies in full with them. The letter states:


"(i) it is national and either unique or, by general consent, regarded as a major body in its field


(ii) it is concerned to foster adult education through its members or affiliates
(iii) specific adult education objectives can be identified which justify DES funding".
I submit that those who know the ECA would not argue that those three criteria were not met by it.
(iv) its aims and activities are non-party political".
I am tempted to ask, what is "non-party political"? However, having attended numerous conferences I can confirm to my hon. Friend that some of its members, for some obscure reasons, do not share our political views, but perhaps in time they will. However, many of its members do share them and an organisation that recently elected as its vice-chairman a serving sergeant in the police force is probably demonstrating its resistence to Marxist-Leninist influences. The letter continues:
(v) it has an organisation capable of stimulating or supporting new educational developments".
That is most important and perhaps it is the key point in all the criteria because, without conforming to that, a genuine question mark would be raised over the organisation. It continues:
(vi) there is real need for financial assistance.
I shall deal with the matter of financial assistance first. Within the past year the ECA has benefited by £63,000 from a legacy of the late Professor Allaway. After making appropriate calculations, I hope that that may provide an annual income of some £6,000. I am not absolutely sure whether the Department is questioning the grant because of the existence of the legacy or, in a sense, because there was no legacy and insufficient funding without it, so I shall examine each alternative.
If it is the case that without that legacy insufficient funding was raised by the ECA, I point out, making realistic projections, that the ECA could expect to raise some £12,500 or £13,000 in today's money, being both investment income and membership income. Its expenditure will be some £32,000, which is predominantly the cost of a full-time secretary and back-up facilities.
The gap is fairly obvious, and it is met in the main by the existing grant of £18,000. Only that grant keeps the ECA going in its present form. A recent written reply showed that in each of the last three years the grant had, none the less, been cut by 6 per cent., 11 per cent. and 15 per cent. in real terms. If it was to be suggested in some way that the legacy might remove the requirement for the Department to support it, I would counsel caution. A letter from Mr. Denis Rice, who is the warden of the Department of Adult Education at the University of Leicester states:
I am writing not just as an ECA member, but as a colleague of the late Professor Allaway for 21 years and as trustee of his estate.
I am sure that I write for my fellow trustee when I say that I am most disturbed by the coincidence of the ECA losing its (relatively) small annual grant at the same time as it receives Professor Allaway's legacy. I hope you can impress on the DES the unfortunate impression that this can convey and the disincentive to public-spirited people to give legacies to voluntary bodies.
Five years ago, with the express agreement of the Department of Education and Science, a permanent secretary was appointed with no suggestion at that time that the grant from the DES was in the nature of a pump-priming exercise. Since then, 50 new centres have been added to the ECA's activities. Whilst some 24 have been lost, the majority of those have been as a result of local authority reorganisation, and a large minority because the

centres themselves could not afford the cost of membership of the ECA, which includes conferences attendance.
For example, a small centre which may seek to send one person to two conferences a year, and to pay the subscription which has to be drawn from the centre would in present-day sums need to find £150 to £200 a year. At precisely the same time that centre is under enormous pressure to devote that sum of money to this, that or the other locally required need, equipment or whatever for its centre. That is the competition that paying a subscription to the ECA faces.
Any suggestion that in some way the money that would be lost from the DES grant could be found by increasing subscription has to come up against the reality that that would need a triple or quadruple increase in subscriptions, with the inevitable result that many centres would withdraw from the ECA. The centres that would withdraw would be the smaller and poorer ones, which would be the very centres in most need of learning how best practice could be implemented. That is the vicious circle in which we may find ourselves.
I could have quoted from many letters I have received on the subject, and I am sure that the House will be relieved to know that I am quoting only from one. It is to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) from the Bideford school and community college. It states:
This College is left in a curious position in that our work with the unemployed was greatly helped in its initial stages by other centres in the ECA, notably in South Wales and in Bristol. From those contacts, we have been able to develop our work in a more imaginative way. At the same time, our budget is so constricted that we have had to abandon our literacy provision (one of the largest schemes in rural Devon), and I suspect that it will not survive on a voluntary basis until the new DES plans materialize. … Yet, just … where we most need contact with other centres, our only link with them is threatened by this withdrawal of grant.
We have found our membership of ECA a useful link to the outside world: our students attend ECA conferences regularly, largely at their own expense, or subsidised by funds raised by students. Through the conferences and the regular ECA mailings, we have learned first hand of developments in other places, many of which we have been able to adapt for local use. Of recent years, our ECA membership has provided more training of student representatives than the Education Authority has been able to offer. Any reduction in ECA services is bound to lead in time to a deterioration in the quality of the local Adult Education service.
That letter is signed by Nigel Melville, the adult tutor.
In his answer to me on 6 March my hon. Friend said:
Officials have discussed grant with the ECA, which has only one quarter of the membership of education centres. The association's objectives are insufficiently central to the Department's main concerns to merit a continuation of current pump-priming grant. A phased reduction will be made over three years".—[Official Report, 6 March 1984; Vol. 55, c. 721.]
Leaving aside the strange coincidence that most of the most active and forward-looking centres in adult education happen to be members of the ECA, let me give my hon. Friend one practical example of its value. On 5 March he announced a £2·5 million programme to improve education opportunities for unemployed adults by identifying and developing good practice to meet their specific needs—exactly the role of the ECA. Today—that is, now, yesterday—the ECA received all the back-up information, dated February 1984. On inquiring the reason for the long delay, it was told that the DES had been unable to locate a mailing list, and had at last resorted to the ECA centres listed in the National Institute for Adult


and Continuing Education year book. Was that material not central to the Department's main concerns? Without the ECA the Department would be reduced to sending batches of letters to local education authorities and hoping that they would reach the right destination.
My final argument is about the future educational role of the ECA. I see that as the critical element. Centres receive money from their local education authorities to make provision for adult education. The guiding principle used by most education authorities is that classes should break even or be self-supporting. That has led to changes in most centres' programmes to ensure that popular high fee-raising classes are given the most prominence. Such classes often form the basis of criticism from councillors about "tap dancing on the rates". The provision of highly funded MSC courses for young adults completes the imbalance of general provision to which most centres are driven, but which then attracts both Government and local authority members' censure.
The ECA uses its influence with its member centres to establish balanced programmes, in which provision is made for all types of participant, including those said to be of special concern to the Government — the unemployed, the impoverished elderly and those in need of basic education. It does that by establishing what is good practice in its centres, through its national, regional and local conferences, and through its reports and research programmes, such as that recently conducted on participation.
It is interesting to note that the £2·5 million initiative for the unemployed includes a projected salaries and expenses sum of £400,000 for the appointment of seven to nine field officers whose responsibility will be to try to establish what is good practice. Those officers will have no network of centres to tap—except the ECA—and will have to establish one before any suitable comparisons can begin to be made. That will take a considerable amount of time, money and expertise. The ECA's salaries and expenses bill of under £20,000 looks especially high value compared with the proposed spending of £400,000. The ECA has in addition the ready-made contact with a quarter of both centres and students—some 400,000 in all.
For all those reasons and many more, I urge my hon. Friend to review his decision now, before any damage is done and before 150 nation-wide centres and numerous others who are sympathetic start organising themselves in a co-ordinated protest.
There is no educational, political or common sense in further reducing, let alone eliminating, the grant. The grant is a classic example of the way in which funding advanced to voluntary bodies can create a framework of volunteer services of infinite value to the community. It should be continued. We, as Conservatives supporting the principle of self-help, should not reject it. I urge my hon. Friend to think again.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Peter Brooke): Every night of doubt and sorrow always contains a pilgrim band, but I take particular pride in having shared this one with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), my colleague in Wales, the Minister of State, and my other hon. Friends who have reached this promised land and

stayed to listen to the debate. Congratulations in such debates are common place, but they are particularly well deserved tonight.
I welcome the opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and to give the Government's reasons for taking the decision to cease funding the Educational Centres Association.
At the risk of going over again some of the ground which as already been covered I should like to establish the context in which this decision was taken. For many years the Department has made grants to a wide range of bodies engaged in providing educational services. About a dozen of these national associations have been in the area of adult education. As long ago as 1981 we decided to undertake a review of the grants to these bodies, all paid under what is now regulation 19 of the 1983 (Education) Grant Regulations. We are concerned with grants towards the administrative expenses of bodies providing educational services. That regulation is not concerned with grants towards putting on courses. The issue of grant to the EMDs and WEA districts is therefore a quite separate matter.
The thinking behind the review, was straightforward. About £300,000 of scarce adult education resources were tied up year in, year out, without any systematic reassessment of the level of grants or, indeed, of the relevance of grant aid to the Government's priorities at the time. I want to emphasise that point to establish that reviews of priorities for grant will in future be regular and rigorous.
We needed to consider whether the grants effectively helped to increase adult education opportunities. Were we getting good value for money? Were the objectives of the associations those to which the Government attached priority? If, within limited funds, we were to avoid stagnation, promote efficiency and support attempts to respond to changing educational needs, we needed to be clear on our criteria for grant aid, where appropriate, and adjust the pattern of grants accordingly. This was the basis on which we proceeded. Each organisation was asked for a statement of its circumstances and current plans. The ECA responded to this request, as, of course, did every other national association. The submissions were tested against the criteria for grant aid which had been drawn up. Departmental officials had meetings with national officers of several of the national associations, including those of the ECA, in 1982. Final decisions on the grants were those set against the Department's wider strategy for adult and continuing education and the Government's priorities within that. As my hon. Friend said, we finally announced the decisions taken in a series of letters to all the associations concerned in March and April of this year. The ECA itself was forewarned as a matter of courtesy at a meeting with officials on 1 March.
The letters that we sent out detailed the criteria for accepting an association as eligible for grant. My hon. Friend gave them in his speech and I shall not repeat them, but I should like to give the three financial provisions that he did not quote. The first is that an association can raise a substantial proportion of the income needed to run it from sources other than the DES and on that basis appears financially secure. Secondly, base grant should be reviewed annually in the light of alternative sources of income and be reduced to the minimum compatible with achieving its approved objectives. Additional short-term


grants might be available for particular programmes in specified priority areas—for example, provision for the educationally disadvantaged.
I assure my hon. Friend that Professor Allaway's legacy, although I welcome it, has not affected the Department's decision, which arose from a review two years in the making.
Our key criterion, so far as the ECA is concerned, is whether specific adult education objectives can be identified which justify DES funding. The objectives of the ECA were spelt out in their initial submission to the Department. They were to secure
the provision of adult education on the basis of democratic management by students and staff, with help from professional guidance, in adequate and appropriate premises contributory to an active communal life 'Democratic Management' implies decision making about the scope and content of the education provided and sharing in finding and allocating resources for centres including those directly funded by Local Authorities".
As instances of its concern with the quantity and quality of education available to adults, the association stated:
in present circumstances the Association has been active in defence of Centres threatened with closure or impotence because of unrealistic fee increases. It is closely involved in the work of the 'Save Adult Education' Committee and in the encouragement of parliamentary debate".
I put it to my hon. Friend that in any pecking order of claims on central Government funds these aims and objectives cannot be placed at the absolute forefront. The underlying objective of departmental grants to the headquarters of national voluntary associations is to help stimulate the growth of adult education opportunities through their members and affiliates which, in the ordinary run of things, might play little or no part in adult education provision. The great majority of the centres in membership of the ECA already receive public funds for making adult education provision through their funding bodies, largely the LEAs, and it is to these that they must look for increased support.
The size of the grant to ECA, therefore, does not directly affect the number of courses and classes provided. Its primary concern is with the process and form of that education—the democratic, participatory model that has been mentioned tonight. This is a legitimate approach for the ECA to take, but it must follow those aims as a pressure group freed from the trammels of DES grant. At a time of considerable constraints on public funds generally finding a pressure group of this kind cannot be a priority for central Government. As I emphasised last week at the annual conference of the Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit, Government policy is about getting right the balance between competing needs and priorities. At the moment we are increasing support to ALBSU and the Professional, Industrial and Commercial Updating programme—PICKUP. We have launched this year a new programme designed to improve the response of the education service to the needs of the unemployed, as my hon. Friend said, and set up a development unit in the National Institute for Adult Continuing Education. These are all examples of initiatives relating to real and urgent needs. We are continuing to support adult liberal education provided by the university extra-mural departments and the WEA districts, albeit at a slightly lower level of departmental grant, together with the work of the long-term residential colleges. The total sum of money being spent on adult education will be increased significantly and

it will be more sharply focused to produce real improvements in the range and scope of adult education provision.
There is one other perspective that I think is relevant. The ECA is seen in some quarters as providing a valuable forum for adult education interests. I know that the ECA has been active in running conferences and spreading ideas of benefit to the service as a whole, but I must point out that the Department is already funding the National Institute for Adult Continuing Education to the tune of £81,000 a year to act as a national focus. It has been doing so for decades. Moreover, traditionally, local authority associations have largely matched the resources that we have put in. In other words, there is no need for the ECA, with at most one full-time member of staff, to adopt the wider function that some of our critics appear to assume is needed. At the same time that we announced our decision on ECA funding, we confirmed our intention to continue to grant aid the national institute in its important focal point.
A criticism made in some quarters is that the decision to withdraw grant to the ECA reflects a lack of support for the voluntary sector. That simply does not stand up to scrutiny. As I have explained, the ECA's membership comprises in the main, LEA adult education centres. In the past two years we have offered grant aid to three new national associations, the affiliates of which are solidly in the voluntary sector—the Pre-Retirement Association, the National Federation of Community Organisations and the National Housewives Register. We welcome the valuable contribution of voluntary bodies in making more adult education opportunities available. That is why we are continuing to fund national associations in total at about the same level as before.
In view of the comments made earlier in the debate, I think that I should make it clear that the ECA has received its present higher level of grant only during the past five years. In 1979 an increase was allowed which enabled the association to appoint a full-time secretary. It was not envisaged that this essentially pump-priming support would be extended indefinitely. Unfortunately, the hoped for increase in subscription income from members did not materialise and the ECA has become proportionately highly dependent on Department support. Subscription income was about £4,800 in 1982–83 and is forecast to be £5,700 in 1983–84—less than one third of the amount of DES grant in either year.
As will have been gathered from the criteria that my hon. Friend read out, our grant is normally dependent on potential self-sufficiency. It has been and continues to be the Government's wish to make the transition to self-sufficiency on the part of the ECA as smooth as possible. We are continuing to fund the association at current levels until September 1985. The grant thereafter will be determined in the light of the detailed income and expenditure projections, but we plan to make appropriate sums available, on a reducing basis, until March 1988. I very much hope that full use will be made of this long transitional period to plan carefully for the longer term.
Government policy has been to take a long hard look at the way in which the Department's adult education budget is spent, with a view to ensuring that grant is allocated as effectively as possible in line with our priorities and achieves the best possible outcome. No review worth the name could simply perpetuate in every detail the old pattern of grants. Inevitably there are some


who do not benefit from such a review, and I have explained at some length the thinking which has underlain our decision in the ECA's grant. It is, however, indicative of our commitment to and concern for the health of adult education that the outcome of our wide-ranging look at expenditure has been an increase in the adult education budget from £12·9 million last year to a planned total of £15·8 million in 1985–86—an increase of 22·5 per cent. in two years. I would argue strongly that our approach of concentrating on the highest priorities is creating more adult education opportunities in the areas where they are most needed. This is the best use of resources available to us.
My hon. Friend has been patient throughout the night and eloquent in what he has said. I do not want remotely to encourage him into thinking that even a single brick of

the walls of Jericho is about to fall. He has heard my arguments. However, at the end of this long day, I promise to re-examine the matter and to write to him again shortly. I hope that he will take that offer in the spirit in which it is made.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As this is the longest sitting of the House since the war—it has lasted about 32½ hours—is it not a time-honoured tradition for the last hon. Member to speak to treat the remaining hon. Members to at least a salvatory Tea Room mug of coffee?

Mr. Speaker: That is a very good idea, but unhappily I shall not be able to join the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock on Wednesday 23 May 1984.